Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

[otseng]

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538

[otseng]

orry Otseng, I have an insane amount of work. For today I'll only be able to respond to the above. Please standby for responses to the other issues you brought up.

I'm getting terribly busy too. I'm in my last semester of classes and I've been given even more stuff to do at work and more responsibilities at church. So, my responses are not going to be quick either.

I'm not sure what your exact definition of a miracle is. You've quoted several different ones.

Here are the definitions again.

"A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"
http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

Given the breath of different meanings and concepts that could be attached to the word miracle, it's REQUIRED that we narrow down the definition of miracle before we can determine what does and does not fall under its umbrella. Please provide your exact definition.

What is common in these definitions is that it is supernatural in origin and does not conform to the laws of nature. So, my definition would be - A miracle is an event that is supernatural in origin and does not obey any of the known laws of nature.

1) Given the extreme similarity between my two explanations above, do you agree that any word that can be used to broadly label my explanation for the universe beginning to exist, can also be used to broadly label my explanation for a puddle beginning to exist?

2) Do you agree that if, in order to include the universe beginning to exist, your definition of miracle is so wide that it also describes a puddle beginning to exist, then your definition of miracle is so wide that it becomes meaningless?

Bonus question: Do you agree that if your definition of "vegetables" is so wide that it can include bacon, then your definition of "vegetables" is, at a minimum, problematic?

I don't really understand your questions here or their relevance.

3) Could you please provide an example of an event for which, no matter what definition of the word is used, the word "miracle" would never apply?

If an event is natural in origin or obeys the laws of nature, it would not be considered a miracle. All the examples you provided earlier would be not be qualified as a miracle: "Having sex and getting pregnant, having sex and NOT getting pregnant, getting pregnant without having sex, winning the lottery, moving a mountain, finding your way down from a mountain, parting the seas, learning how to swim, not having a car accident, having a car accident and surviving, having a car accident and dying, having a bowel movement, being able to control your bladder, narrowly escaping death, escaping death by a wide margin, flatulence not smelling, showing up on time, your sex partner maintaining an erection, your rapist losing his erection, finding your keys, meeting a deadline, etc, etc, etc."

Ok, would movement be possible in an environment where space and time are meaningless and there are no dimensions?

I don't know.

But, let me remind you that NIH has similar problems as IH in this regard. If you believe that IH involves a process (like evolution), it implies a passage of time/movement. If it's vibrating strings, it also implies a passage of time/movement. I don't see how it's possible to claim that IH has problems with a timeless setting whereas NIH does not.

Absolutely! A claim stands or falls on its own merits. As per your general principle, it stands on the basis of evidentiary and logical support, NOT on popularity. I promise that if you demonstrate that logic and evidence support a claim more than alternative claims, I will accept it irrespective of how popular that claim is.

OK.

"Observable universe" is different from "universe".

Of course.

5000 years ago the "observable universe" was a few miles in diameter, with your village at the center of it.

This is not what I mean by the observable universe.

Here is what I mean:
"The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

What this implies is that, in principle, it is impossible to observe things outside the observable universe.

Here we go again. You are making a category error, man. I would almost say it's a play on words.

"Observable universe" simply means "that which we are able to observe". It's an abstraction. Not a physical object.

No, it's not a play on words. There is an exact definition -- that I provided above -- for the observable universe.

First we could see them, and then we could not. Kinda how somebody driving at 30 miles an hour, eventually will no longer be able to see a car driving on same highway at 60 miles/hour.

I've never heard of that. You'll have to show me where this has been recorded.

Very doubtful. But what's that got to do with anything? Please provide conclusive evidence that it's impossible.

We can discuss this later when it's more apropos.

Why do you claim that of necessity indirect evidence cannot be empirical? Empirical simply means "verifiable by observation". I am able to verify indirect evidence by observation.

Let me put it this way. Suppose we theorize that in another universe, the equation for force is F=mv. Since it's in another universe, we'd have no way to make any measurements or do any experiments to confirm that F=mv is true in that universe. F=mv would be unverifiable.

For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven.

I don't like the word "faith". Please don't introduce religious terminology into the discourse without clearly defining it first.

Sorry if you don't like the word, but I'm applying the word to IH. And it's entirely reasonable for me to use religious terminology for a deist position.

I'll define faith as believing in something without proof. Faith can have religious connotations (and most of the time it does), but it does not always have religious connotations. Someone can have faith in another person, faith in the Seattle Seahawks, faith in government, etc.

Of course there will be lack of complete certainty and we will never be able to prove conclusively things outside the universe. Indeed, there will always be a lack of complete certainty and we will never be able to prove conclusively things INSIDE the universe.

Bottom line of where I'm going is that saying something is a natural law that applies outside our universe is meaningless. We can never, even in principle, know that it is a law, because it can never be verified by experimentation or observation. Also, saying something that is natural that is outside our universe would be redefining the word natural.

[no evidence no belief]

orry Otseng, I have an insane amount of work. For today I'll only be able to respond to the above. Please standby for responses to the other issues you brought up.

I'm getting terribly busy too. I'm in my last semester of classes and I've been given even more stuff to do at work and more responsibilities at church. So, my responses are not going to be quick either.

I'm not sure what your exact definition of a miracle is. You've quoted several different ones.

Here are the definitions again.

"A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Well, this does not apply to NIH. According to NIH, the universe's beginning was caused by a purely natural event, in complete conformity with natural laws. That alone makes it fundamentally non-miraculous and fundamentally different from IH. And that's even without getting into the notion of what "divine" is.

So this variation of the definition of miracle clearly does not apply to NIH.

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle

"An event that appears inexplicable, therefore God". This is just a definition of the word based on an argument from ignorance. "I can't explain lightning, therefore it's Zeus throwing spears from the sky". "I can't explain the universe beginning to exist, therefore God did it".

It goes without saying that this definition does not apply to NIH.

I'm also assuming that it doesn't apply to IH. Or are you saying that you posit the involvement of an intelligent entity in the causation of the universe, on the basis of your ignorance of how else it could have happened?

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

Again, it "surpasses all known powers", therefore Goddidit. Argument from ignorance.

1) Something caused the universe to begin existing
2) We don't know what that something was
3) Therefore it was God

"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"
http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

Well, NIH does not postulate that the event that caused the universe was a violation or transgression of any law of nature. Furthermore the notion that the universe was caused by a deity capable of acting out of it's volition is EXACTLY the claim that NIH rejects.

So this variation of the definition of miracle clearly does not apply to NIH.

What is common in these definitions is that it is supernatural in origin and does not conform to the laws of nature. So, my definition would be - A miracle is an event that is supernatural in origin and does not obey any of the known laws of nature.

Well, that's settled then. NIH is NOT a miracle.

NIH rejects the notion of the supernatural. I posit that whatever caused the universe was a natural event, in conformance with whatever laws were present. The mere fact that it was outside the cosmic event horizon gives the event no special significance whatsoever.

In conclusion, it has been clearly been established that the term "miracle" does NOT apply to NIH. Please refrain from using it when referring to NIH.

And again, I am very disturbed by your use of the word "known". As in "A miracle is an event that doesn't obey any of the KNOWN laws of nature". What if an event obeys unknown laws of nature?

Are you saying that as our knowledge of laws of nature expands, and more and more laws that used to be unknown become known, more and more miracles transform into non-miracles?

Are you saying that a magnet was miraculous until 1269, and then in 1269 it became a non-miracle?

When did rain stop being a miracle? Lighting? The tides? According to Bill O'Reilly, the tides are a miracle, because he admits he doesn't understand how they work. They do not obey any known (to him) law of nature. Is he therefore justified in calling the tides a miracle?

Or is it when a LOT of people don't understand something that it becomes a miracle?

In other words, is your definition of a miracle based on an argument from ignorance alone, or an argument from ignorance compounded by an inverse argument from popularity?

Last question on this topic: It's been scientifically proven in the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems that when a star collapses it generates a black hole, at the center of which there is a singularity, where space-time is so warped that the laws of nature break down.

At the center of the black hole lies a singularity, that is, a region where the current laws of physics break down because the circumstances are so extreme.

So events at a singularity inside a collapsed star "do not obey any of the known laws of nature". In other words, collapsed stars fit your definition of a miracle EXACTLY. Are you hereby positing that black holes are miracles?

1) Given the extreme similarity between my two explanations above, do you agree that any word that can be used to broadly label my explanation for the universe beginning to exist, can also be used to broadly label my explanation for a puddle beginning to exist?

2) Do you agree that if, in order to include the universe beginning to exist, your definition of miracle is so wide that it also describes a puddle beginning to exist, then your definition of miracle is so wide that it becomes meaningless?

Bonus question: Do you agree that if your definition of "vegetables" is so wide that it can include bacon, then your definition of "vegetables" is, at a minimum, problematic?

I don't really understand your questions here or their relevance.

Well, this is all moot.

You've provided a definition of miracle, and in so doing have clearly established that NIH does NOT conform to that definition and that therefore it's NOT justified to use the label "miracle" to describe NIH.

Furthermore, you have made inroads in establishing that the definition of a miracle is based on an argument from ignorance (We don't know how this happened therefore it was a miracle), or possibly based on an argument from inverse popularity (a bunch of us don't know how this happened, therefore it was a miracle). I look forward to your clarification on which one of these two logical fallacies your definition of miracle is based on, or if it's based on both logical fallacies.

"Observable universe" is different from "universe".

Of course.

5000 years ago the "observable universe" was a few miles in diameter, with your village at the center of it.

This is not what I mean by the observable universe.

Here is what I mean:
"The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Oh ok. So "observable universe" simply means stuff inside the cosmic event horizon.

I'm sorry but by introducing the term "observable universe" to describe a concept we already understood and had already been discussing you've done nothing to advance the discussion.

What this implies is that, in principle, it is impossible to observe things outside the observable universe.

It's impossible to directly observe, from standstill, in the present day, with current technology, that which is beyond the cosmic event horizon. The problem for you is that direct observation is not the only type of observation that can provide empirical verification, we will not always necessarily be at standstill with regards to any event horizon, and in the future we might develop technology to address whatever impediments currently exists.

We are discussing whether it's categorically impossible beyond any doubt whatsoever no matter what, to develop the technology at some stage in the next 10 billion years and beyond, to move faster than the speed of light in the way that distant galaxies are currently doing, and in so doing stretch the boundaries of the observable universe, making things which were unobservable, observable.

Here we go again. You are making a category error, man. I would almost say it's a play on words.

"Observable universe" simply means "that which we are able to observe". It's an abstraction. Not a physical object.

No, it's not a play on words. There is an exact definition -- that I provided above -- for the observable universe.

Got it
The observable universe is the cosmic event horizon. Earlier you were simply asserting that it's impossible to verify conditions outside the cosmic event horizon. Now you are simply asserting that it's impossible to verify conditions outside the observable universe. Information, data, argument, evidence, logic added: ZERO

You're just rebranding the same assertion without presenting any argument whatsoever.

I could rename NIH to TAH (Totally Accurate Hypothesis). Would that make it more likely to be superior to IH?

First we could see them, and then we could not. Kinda how somebody driving at 30 miles an hour, eventually will no longer be able to see a car driving on same highway at 60 miles/hour.

I've never heard of that. You'll have to show me where this has been recorded.

Fully documented here.

Very doubtful. But what's that got to do with anything? Please provide conclusive evidence that it's impossible.

We can discuss this later when it's more apropos.

We're in the middle of discussing exactly this right now! If you want to drop the subject, just because you want to, I'll absolutely consider it out of courtesy if nothing else. But I see no better time to finish discussing something than when you're in the middle of discussing it.

You are claiming that it's irrefutably, undeniably, categorically 100% impossible, forever, for anybody, no matter what, to empirically verify any statement about conditions outside their cosmic event horizon.

Please do not deny that this is your position. If you are arguing for anything short of "irrefutably, undeniably, categorically 100% impossible forever for anybody no matter what", then you are agreeing that it's possible.

So, please provide conclusive unassailable proof that it's impossible to empirically verify, directly or indirectly, claims about events outside the cosmic event horizon. Until you prove with 100% certainty that it's impossible, it's by definition possible.

Why do you claim that of necessity indirect evidence cannot be empirical? Empirical simply means "verifiable by observation". I am able to verify indirect evidence by observation.

Let me put it this way. Suppose we theorize that in another universe, the equation for force is F=mv. Since it's in another universe, we'd have no way to make any measurements or do any experiments to confirm that F=mv is true in that universe. F=mv would be unverifiable.

Sure, until such a time as we are able to devise a method to send a intra-universal sensor to this different universe. Or until such a time as we are able to discover ways to measure the ways in which these different laws in this other universe manifest themselves in an empirically measurable way in this universe.

The burden is on you to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that it's 100% certain that it's completely impossible to ever do this, no matter what.

For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven.

I don't like the word "faith". Please don't introduce religious terminology into the discourse without clearly defining it first.

Sorry if you don't like the word, but I'm applying the word to IH. And it's entirely reasonable for me to use religious terminology for a deist position.

I'll define faith as believing in something without proof. Faith can have religious connotations (and most of the time it does), but it does not always have religious connotations. Someone can have faith in another person, faith in the Seattle Seahawks, faith in government, etc.

Ok, can you confirm that "without proof" is completely different from "without evidence"?

I have overwhelming evidence that chicken lay eggs. However, I don't have proof of this.

By your definition does it therefore require faith to believe that chicken lay eggs?

Of course there will be lack of complete certainty and we will never be able to prove conclusively things outside the universe. Indeed, there will always be a lack of complete certainty and we will never be able to prove conclusively things INSIDE the universe.

Bottom line of where I'm going is that saying something is a natural law that applies outside our universe is meaningless. We can never, even in principle, know that it is a law, because it can never be verified by experimentation or observation.

I appreciate that you continue to offer the exact same assertion with different phrasing. This makes your assertion very clearly understood, and leaves no room for misunderstanding.

Now that you've clearly established what your assertion is, please proceed to step two and back it up.

Please prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that it is completely 100% certain that it's in principle impossible to ever verify events outside the cosmic event horizon by experimentation or observation. Until you've proven it's impossible, it's possible.

Also, saying something that is natural that is outside our universe would be redefining the word natural.

Really? I just looked up 146 definitions of the word "natural" on Google dictionary, Merriam-Webster, thefreedictionary, dictionary.com, and NONE of them contained any definition even remotely close to "exclusively relating to events inside a specific cosmic event horizon".

Please provide a reputable source that defines it thus, so that we can then debate whether abandoning such a definition in favor of the ones provided by every other source, would constitute redefining the word.

Ok, would movement be possible in an environment where space and time are meaningless and there are no dimensions?

I don't know.

But, let me remind you that NIH has similar problems as IH in this regard. If you believe that IH involves a process (like evolution), it implies a passage of time/movement. If it's vibrating strings, it also implies a passage of time/movement. I don't see how it's possible to claim that IH has problems with a timeless setting whereas NIH does not.

I disagree. What if NIH posits an immobile, timeless, unknown cause for the universe? The incompatibility of timelessness and movement would not apply to it, because it would be unmoving.

Are there problems with this hypothesis? Of course! That's why humanity is still working on the problem.

But, however unlikely an immobile, timeless, unknown object with the ability to cause the universe is, it's even more unlikely to posit that this object as well as having these unlikely properties of immobility, timelessness, and ability to cause the universe, also has the additional unlikely property of intelligence.

However unlikely it is to win the lottery, AND get struck by lightning AND flip a coin and get tails 10 times in a row, it's even MORE unlikely to win the lottery, AND get struck by lightning AND flip a coin and get tails 10 times in a row AND have a piano fall on your head as you're walking down the street.

If I were able to provide evidence that immobility and timelessness and ability to cause the universe were non-problematic for NIH, and only problematic for IH, then the debate would pretty much be over.

Nonetheless, it can be reasonably posited that however problematic/unlikely "immobility + timelessness + ability to cause universe" is, it's even more problematic/unlikely for "immobility + timelessness + ability to cause universe + intelligence" to be true.

Until you address the fact that non-intelligence is more likely than intelligence, or until you present a separate argument that makes the issue of likelihood moot, then NIH has an advantage over IH.

[no evidence no belief]

Updated recap


Arguments for the deistic God
-[strike]Argument from no internal contradictions
-Argument from conformity with facts and laws
-Argument from conformity with logic
-Argument from consistency with what we know is true
-Argument from falsifiability
-Argument from number of universes
-Argument from infinite regress versus timelessness[/strike]
-[strike]Argument from lots of people believing in God[/strike]
-[strike]Argument from more details for IH than NIH [/strike]
-Argument from contingency - Defunct? Let me know if this is done.
-Argument from the word "miracle" being applicable to NIH - Defunct? Let me know if you concede


Arguments against the Deistic God
-Argument from incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence - ongoing. (Currently discussing incompatibility of timelessness and movement as a precursor)

Semantics, terminology and other housekeeping issues
- "Miracle". Is an argument from ignorance at the core of the definition of this word?
- "Faith". If "Faith" is belief in something in the absence of complete proof and certainty, and if I have overwhelming evidence, but do not have complete proof and certainty that chicken lay eggs, is my belief that "chicken lay eggs" an act of faith?

[otseng]

Here are the definitions again.

"A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Well, this does not apply to NIH. According to NIH, the universe's beginning was caused by a purely natural event, in complete conformity with natural laws. That alone makes it fundamentally non-miraculous and fundamentally different from IH. And that's even without getting into the notion of what "divine" is.

I guess we need to define what is "nature" then.

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature

everything in the physical world that is not controlled by humans, such as wild plants and animals, earth and rocks, and the weather

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/nature

the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d ... can/nature

According to these definitions, things outside our universe would not be considered nature. Thus any law outside our universe would not be a law of nature.

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle

"An event that appears inexplicable, therefore God". This is just a definition of the word based on an argument from ignorance. "I can't explain lightning, therefore it's Zeus throwing spears from the sky". "I can't explain the universe beginning to exist, therefore God did it".

It says supernatural in origin or an act of God. Again, this definition does not necessarily say that God did it, but that it was supernatural in origin.

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

Again, it "surpasses all known powers", therefore Goddidit. Argument from ignorance.

Again, a supernatural cause doesn't necessarily mean God.

"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"
http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

Well, NIH does not postulate that the event that caused the universe was a violation or transgression of any law of nature.

Your immovable, timeless, non-volitional, extra-universal cause could be considered to be an invisible agent.

NIH rejects the notion of the supernatural. I posit that whatever caused the universe was a natural event, in conformance with whatever laws were present. The mere fact that it was outside the cosmic event horizon gives the event no special significance whatsoever.

How do you define supernatural and natural?

In conclusion, it has been clearly been established that the term "miracle" does NOT apply to NIH.

Clearly established? I don't think so.

And again, I am very disturbed by your use of the word "known". As in "A miracle is an event that doesn't obey any of the KNOWN laws of nature". What if an event obeys unknown laws of nature?

How would you know if something obeys an unknown law of nature?

Are you saying that a magnet was miraculous until 1269, and then in 1269 it became a non-miracle?

You need to apply the entire definition, not just one part of it. A magnet is natural in origin, so it is not miraculous. To be considered a miracle, it has to be both supernatural in origin and violate known laws of nature.

When did rain stop being a miracle? Lighting? The tides? According to Bill O'Reilly, the tides are a miracle, because he admits he doesn't understand how they work. They do not obey any known (to him) law of nature. Is he therefore justified in calling the tides a miracle?

Rain, lightening, tides ... they are all caused by something inside this universe, so they would not be considered miracles.

Last question on this topic: It's been scientifically proven in the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems that when a star collapses it generates a black hole, at the center of which there is a singularity, where space-time is so warped that the laws of nature break down.

At the center of the black hole lies a singularity, that is, a region where the current laws of physics break down because the circumstances are so extreme.

Black holes (as well as singularities) are inside this universe, so they would not be considered supernatural. Thus, they do not fall under being a miracle.

So events at a singularity inside a collapsed star "do not obey any of the known laws of nature". In other words, collapsed stars fit your definition of a miracle EXACTLY. Are you hereby positing that black holes are miracles?

No, it would not fall under the definition since a singularity is inside our universe.

1) Given the extreme similarity between my two explanations above, do you agree that any word that can be used to broadly label my explanation for the universe beginning to exist, can also be used to broadly label my explanation for a puddle beginning to exist?

I've shown that your examples do not fit the definition of a miracle that has been presented by the standard definitions and by myself.

2) Do you agree that if, in order to include the universe beginning to exist, your definition of miracle is so wide that it also describes a puddle beginning to exist, then your definition of miracle is so wide that it becomes meaningless?

You have yet to show how the definitions (mine and the standard definitions) are meaningless.

Furthermore, you have made inroads in establishing that the definition of a miracle is based on an argument from ignorance (We don't know how this happened therefore it was a miracle), or possibly based on an argument from inverse popularity (a bunch of us don't know how this happened, therefore it was a miracle). I look forward to your clarification on which one of these two logical fallacies your definition of miracle is based on, or if it's based on both logical fallacies.

Let's address the argument from ignorance.

This is a charge commonly levied against the argument for God. I presented at the very beginning that the method used to determine if an explanation is reasonable is to compare all the possible explanations. Comparing all the possible explanations is not an argument from ignorance. If one is not willing to look at all the possible explanations and simply say God did it is an argument from ignorance.

Those who charge that God is an argument from ignorance make an implicit assumption that there must be some naturalistic explanation for everything, even if they don't know what it is. They appeal to the future and say, "Science will someday have an explanation for it." Sure, that's a possibility. But, as I also said at the onset, we cannot appeal to the future. We can only go by what we know now. And ironically, the same charge of argument from ignorance can be levied against naturalists. They actually do make a claim of ignorance since they do not know what is the cause.

Another reason that IH is not an argument from ignorance is that it is falsifiable. If a naturalistic explanation is found, then IH is falsified. There is no retreating to some other thing to rest God on.

As to the charge of popularity.

Let me be clear that I'm not arguing that IH is correct because a lot of people believe in it. What I'm more getting at is that IH makes intuitive sense. People can grasp the concept, regardless of time and culture. NIH does not make intuitive sense. Why should it be that nobody has believed in this explanation prior to you? All throughout history, most people would agree with most (if not all) the assumptions we had agreed to earlier. It naturally leads to the conclusion of God for most. But, it does not lead to the conclusion of NIH.

Another point is if you can get others to accept NIH. If you cannot convince peers of a novel theory, then most likely the theory is wrong.

I'm sorry but by introducing the term "observable universe" to describe a concept we already understood and had already been discussing you've done nothing to advance the discussion.

One reason I introduced the term is that you referred to the event horizon of a black hole. That event horizon is not relevant to the discussion of the origin of the universe. The event horizon of the observable universe is what is relevant.

It's impossible to directly observe, from standstill, in the present day, with current technology, that which is beyond the cosmic event horizon. The problem for you is that direct observation is not the only type of observation that can provide empirical verification, we will not always necessarily be at standstill with regards to any event horizon, and in the future we might develop technology to address whatever impediments currently exists.

This would be appealing to the future.

Earlier you were simply asserting that it's impossible to verify conditions outside the cosmic event horizon. Now you are simply asserting that it's impossible to verify conditions outside the observable universe. Information, data, argument, evidence, logic added: ZERO

You're just rebranding the same assertion without presenting any argument whatsoever.

I'm clearing up misapplications of event horizons of black holes to the event horizon of the universe.

But, yes, I claim that it's impossible to verify things outside our universe. It's a given that with current technology, it's impossible. And really that's all I need to demonstrate.

I do go further and claim that it's impossible to verify even in principle. The speed of light is the maximum speed any object can travel. Unless the laws of physics changes, it's impossible to travel (or even communicate) past the cosmic event horizon.

First we could see them, and then we could not. Kinda how somebody driving at 30 miles an hour, eventually will no longer be able to see a car driving on same highway at 60 miles/hour.

I've never heard of that. You'll have to show me where this has been recorded.

Fully documented here.

Could you summarize that one hour video?

You are claiming that it's irrefutably, undeniably, categorically 100% impossible, forever, for anybody, no matter what, to empirically verify any statement about conditions outside their cosmic event horizon.

I discussed this above.

Sure, until such a time as we are able to devise a method to send a intra-universal sensor to this different universe. Or until such a time as we are able to discover ways to measure the ways in which these different laws in this other universe manifest themselves in an empirically measurable way in this universe.

This would be appealing to the future. And actually, I believe appealing to science fiction.

Ok, can you confirm that "without proof" is completely different from "without evidence"?

I would say "blind faith" is belief without any evidence.

Now that you've clearly established what your assertion is, please proceed to step two and back it up.

See above.

Also, saying something that is natural that is outside our universe would be redefining the word natural.

Really? I just looked up 146 definitions of the word "natural" on Google dictionary, Merriam-Webster, thefreedictionary, dictionary.com, and NONE of them contained any definition even remotely close to "exclusively relating to events inside a specific cosmic event horizon".

I provided the definitions of the word "nature" above. None refer to things outside our universe.

What if NIH posits an immobile, timeless, unknown cause for the universe? The incompatibility of timelessness and movement would not apply to it, because it would be unmoving.

Immobile and unmoving? So, that would throw out string theory as well as any possible mechanistic theory.

[no evidence no belief]

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.

everything in the physical world that is not controlled by humans, such as wild plants and animals, earth and rocks, and the weather

the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans

Number of times "nature" is defined as events and objects restricted to exclusively inside the world: 7

Number of times "nature" is defined as events and objects restricted to exclusively inside the universe: 2

By a margin of 3 to 1, in the very definitions you presented, "nature" is restricted to meaning something occurring inside the "world".

According to these definitions, things outside our universe would not be considered nature.

Nope. By a margin of 3 to 1, according to these definitions, things outside our PLANET would not be considered nature.

Thus any law outside our universe would not be a law of nature.

Thus any law outside planet earth would not be a law of nature. Meaning that the forces governing the spin of the Andromeda Galaxy around its central black hole are supernatural, miraculous. Indeed, your cell phone is a miracle, because it is contingent on satellites orbiting way outside our world.

Does that sound absurd? That's because it is. If you take a literal interpretation of the words "world" and "universe", you derive absurd conclusions about what can be considered natural.

The truth is that the word "world" as intended to encompass all of nature, is a relic of our distant linguistic past, when all we could observe directly or indirectly with our bare senses literally WAS just inside our own world. Our planet, the sun, the moon, and the visible stars encompassed everything we knew existed. It seemed impossible to make empirical statements about anything else.

The word "universe" is a relic of a less distant past, but outdated nonetheless. It's from a time when all we could observe directly or indirectly was the universe. A few hundred billion galaxies, some background radiation and ton of dark matter and dark energy which we cannot measure directly, but which we can indirectly empirically determine, encompassed everything we knew existed. It seemed impossible to make empirical statements about anything else.

But now we are on the brink of making empirical, testable falsifiable statements about additional dimensions, and other materials outside our cosmic event horizon. The zeitgeist is shifting, and the concept of "nature" is being updated.

Once upon a time, "nature" used to mean the valley in Africa that humanity started in. Because that's all we could observe to exist.

Then it became an entire continent. Because that's all we could observe to exist.

Then it became the entire planet. Then it became the solar system. Then it became the galaxy. Then it became the cosmic event horizon. Now it's becoming a series of multidimensional membranes, a multiverse.

If you want to discuss what "nature" meant at any given point in human history, you're certainly welcome to. But I think it's much more useful to try to find a comprehensive definition which truly stands the test of time. And it is this: Nature is simply a word for everything which exists separate from human activity.

In this way, it's a true dichotomy. Natural vs Man-made. Period. That encompasses everything inside or outside our planet, inside or outside the galaxy, inside or outside the cosmic event horizon.

To draw the line at the event horizon is arbitrary and baseless, much like it would be to draw the line at our galaxy, at our planet's stratosphere, or at the edge of the forest near our village.

How many times must we expand our observational capabilities and discover that what was just beyond our observable environment at the time actually wasn't some mysterious breakdown of the fabric of reality, before we stop jumping to the conclusion that the laws of nature cease existing just outside our ability to observe them?

By the way, do you agree that from the prospective of a fish, everything outside his pond is supernatural?

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle

"An event that appears inexplicable, therefore God". This is just a definition of the word based on an argument from ignorance. "I can't explain lightning, therefore it's Zeus throwing spears from the sky". "I can't explain the universe beginning to exist, therefore God did it".

It says supernatural in origin or an act of God. Again, this definition does not necessarily say that God did it, but that it was supernatural in origin.

How does that address the problem that it's an argument from ignorance?

1) We don't know how X came to be
2) Therefore Y caused X

Do you agree that the above is an argument from ignorance?

1) We don't know how X came to be
2) Therefore either Y or Z caused X

Is this second argument also one from ignorance?

It doesn't matter if, on the basis of your ignorance you come to the conclusion that something is true, or if you come to the conclusion that something OR something else is true. If it's based on your ignorance, then it's called an argument from ignorance.

1) We don't know how the universe came to be
2) Therefore God did it

1) We don't know how the universe came to be
2) Therefore either God did it, or it was some other type of supernatural event

Do you understand that ANY conclusion derived on the basis of ignorance... Is. An. Argument. From.... IGNORANCE!

Miracles may very well be possible. Supernatural events may very well be possible. God may very well exist. But your ignorance of how something happened is NOT a logically valid reason to conclude miracles, supernatural events, or God.

I refuse to believe that you are any less familiar than I am with basic logical fallacies. And yet you've presented an argument from popularity, and now an argument from ignorance. Do we have to go through all of them before we get to some legitimate arguments?

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

Again, it "surpasses all known powers", therefore Goddidit. Argument from ignorance.

Again, a supernatural cause doesn't necessarily mean God.

Fine. But again, you're not addressing the issue of it being an argument from ignorance.

1) An event surpasses known powers
2) Therefore it was supernatural

That's an argument from ignorance, bud.

"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"
http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

Well, NIH does not postulate that the event that caused the universe was a violation or transgression of any law of nature.

Your immovable, timeless, non-volitional, extra-universal cause could be considered to be an invisible agent.

Sure. That in no way implies that a transgression of a law of nature took place as per the volition of a sentient entity.

You need to apply the entire definition, not just one part of it.

NIH rejects the notion of the supernatural. I posit that whatever caused the universe was a natural event, in conformance with whatever laws were present. The mere fact that it was outside the cosmic event horizon gives the event no special significance whatsoever.

How do you define supernatural and natural?

I don't have a definition for supernatural. I don't see how any object, event, phenomenon could be anything other than natural.

When you ask me "how do you define supernatural and natural", what I feel you're asking me is "how do you define a square with 5 corners and a square with 4 corners".

"Supernatural" and "a square with 5 corners" I define as meaningless logical absurdities. "Natural" and "a square with 4 corners" I define as everything, and every square, respectively.

In conclusion, it has been clearly been established that the term "miracle" does NOT apply to NIH.

Clearly established? I don't think so.

Well, let's continue discussing it then. We'll figure it out

And again, I am very disturbed by your use of the word "known". As in "A miracle is an event that doesn't obey any of the KNOWN laws of nature". What if an event obeys unknown laws of nature?

How would you know if something obeys an unknown law of nature?

That's precisely my point! We don't know! We cannot come to the conclusion that something doesn't obey a law of nature on the basis of our IGNORANCE of whether it does or not. Because that's, you guessed it, an argument from ignorance!

Are you saying that a magnet was miraculous until 1269, and then in 1269 it became a non-miracle?

You need to apply the entire definition, not just one part of it.

Pot calling the kettle black.

In a grotesque effort to try to squeeze NIH inside the pigeonhole of "miracle" you've been doing nothing but cherrypicking those variations and portions of the definition of miracle that kinda fit it, while completely ignoring those variations and portions that directly contradict it, and drawing the fallacious conclusion that therefore NIH is a miracle.

It's called Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

1) All Z is B
2) Y is B
3) Therefore, Y is Z.

1) All members of S.E.A.L Team 6 who killed Bin Laden were male
2) Larry the Cable Guy is male
3) Larry the Cable Guy is a member of S.E.A.L. Team 6

1) All chicken have two legs
2) Martha Stewart has two legs
3) Martha Stewart is a chicken

1) All Dodos are extinct
2) Tyrannosaurus Rex is extinct
3) Therefore Tyrannosaurus Rex is a Dodo

1) All miracles involve an event outside the cosmic event horizon
2) NIH happened outside the cosmic event horizon
3) Therefore NIH is a miracle

I earnestly hope you see this.

It doesn't matter if Navy SEALS and Larry the cable guy, chicken and Martha Stewart, Dodos and Tyrannosaurus Rex, NIH and miracles, have something in common. Martha Stewart is not a chicken, and NIH is not a miracle!

A magnet is natural in origin, so it is not miraculous. To be considered a miracle, it has to be both supernatural in origin and violate known laws of nature.

NOW we know that a magnet is natural in origin. But before 1269 magnetism was an event that appeared inexplicable by the laws of nature. Therefore, as per your definition of a miracle, it would have been held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

Here are the exact words of your accepted definition of miracle: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"

By the "logic" of your definition of miracle, all it takes to draw the conclusion that something is supernatural in origin or an act of God - or in other words a miracle - is the inability to explain it by the laws of nature.

Before 1269, magnetism was inexplicable by the laws of nature, therefore it was a miracle. In 1269, it was no longer inexplicable by the laws of nature, therefore it stopped being a miracle.

I'm sorry, but there is no room for equivocation. I am following the definition of miracle to the letter, and applying it without interpretation or "artistic license".

When did rain stop being a miracle? Lighting? The tides? According to Bill O'Reilly, the tides are a miracle, because he admits he doesn't understand how they work. They do not obey any known (to him) law of nature. Is he therefore justified in calling the tides a miracle?

Rain, lightening, tides ... they are all caused by something inside this universe, so they would not be considered miracles.

I know that. You know that. The majority of people know that. Bill O'Reilly admitted on national TV that he does NOT know that tides are caused by something inside this universe. He thinks they are caused by God. And as per your definition of a miracle, he is absolutely justified, because all it takes to determine that something is a miracle, is for it to not happen in accordance to KNOWN laws of nature. It's only after Bill'O's producer presumably explained to him about the moon and the force of gravity, that tides stopped being a miracle for O'Reilly.

Last question on this topic: It's been scientifically proven in the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems that when a star collapses it generates a black hole, at the center of which there is a singularity, where space-time is so warped that the laws of nature break down.

At the center of the black hole lies a singularity, that is, a region where the current laws of physics break down because the circumstances are so extreme.

Black holes (as well as singularities) are inside this universe, so they would not be considered supernatural. Thus, they do not fall under being a miracle.

I see. LEt me make sure I have this completely clear: You agree with the scientific consensus that a singularity such as inside a black hole is a phenomenon whereby all the laws of physics break down/no longer apply/are suspended.

You are not contesting this. You are just rejecting the notion that this is a miracle because it happened inside the universe.

Again, let's reiterate this: Suspensions/violations/breakdowns of the laws of nature that happen INSIDE the universe (like for example in Jerusalem) are NOT supernatural and are not miracles.

So events at a singularity inside a collapsed star "do not obey any of the known laws of nature". In other words, collapsed stars fit your definition of a miracle EXACTLY. Are you hereby positing that black holes are miracles?

No, it would not fall under the definition since a singularity is inside our universe.

Got it. If they happen inside the universe, they are not miracles.

I'm glad you explained this to me twice, so there is no chance of equivocation or misunderstanding in the future. We'll always be able to go back to what you wrote here.

If a breakdown, suspension, collapse, pause in the laws of nature happens inside the universe then it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, a miracle. If it happened outside the universe it would be a miracle, but if it happens inside the universe (drumroll please) IT IS NOT a miracle.

Would you like to retract that (and implicitly admit that black holes are miracles)?

1) Given the extreme similarity between my two explanations above, do you agree that any word that can be used to broadly label my explanation for the universe beginning to exist, can also be used to broadly label my explanation for a puddle beginning to exist?

I've shown that your examples do not fit the definition of a miracle that has been presented by the standard definitions and by myself.

2) Do you agree that if, in order to include the universe beginning to exist, your definition of miracle is so wide that it also describes a puddle beginning to exist, then your definition of miracle is so wide that it becomes meaningless?

You have yet to show how the definitions (mine and the standard definitions) are meaningless.

Your definition of miracle is meaningless because it's an argument from ignorance. Just because we dont understand something, it's not justification for asserting it's a miracle.

Your attempt to claim that NIH falls under your definition of miracle is meaningless because it's a fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because X shares properties with Y, it doesn't mean that X is Y.

Furthermore, you have made inroads in establishing that the definition of a miracle is based on an argument from ignorance (We don't know how this happened therefore it was a miracle), or possibly based on an argument from inverse popularity (a bunch of us don't know how this happened, therefore it was a miracle). I look forward to your clarification on which one of these two logical fallacies your definition of miracle is based on, or if it's based on both logical fallacies.

Let's address the argument from ignorance.

Yes, lets.

This is a charge commonly levied against the argument for God. I presented at the very beginning that the method used to determine if an explanation is reasonable is to compare all the possible explanations. Comparing all the possible explanations is not an argument from ignorance. If one is not willing to look at all the possible explanations and simply say God did it is an argument from ignorance.

You are conflating two completely separate issues.

An argument from ignorance is when you draw a conclusion on the basis of not knowing something. Like for example "An event appears inexplicable by the laws of nature, therefore it's supernatural in origin or an act of God". Anytime you formulate an argument like this: Ignorance, therefore conclusion", you've made an argument from ignorance. It's bunk. It's invalid. It's not worth the kinetic energy used to type it.

It doesn't matter if first you refuse to look at all possible explanations and then you make an argument from ignorance, or if first you agree to look at all the possible explanations and then you make an argument from ignorance.

You still made an argument from ignorance!

How is willingness to look at bonafide explanations before making an argument from ignorance even remotely relevant?

An argument from ignorance is when you derive a conclusion from ignorance. It doesn't matter if prior to making the argument from ignorance you considered 1, 5, 10 or a million possible explanations. If the explanation you picked was based on an argument from ignorance... then you made an argument from ignorance.

It's beyond me that you would challenge this!

Those who charge that God is an argument from ignorance make an implicit assumption that there must be some naturalistic explanation for everything, even if they don't know what it is.

Yes, I assume that there is a naturalistic explanation for the universe having begun to exist. If I were to make the conclusion that it was a naturalistic event, on the basis of my ignorance of whether it was a naturalistic event, then it would indeed be an argument from ignorance.

But that's not the argument being made. I posit that the universe coming into existence was a natural event on the basis of an argument from conformity with what we know to be true - an argument structure you yourself have presented and therefore cannot now turn around and claim is invalid.

Every event we've ever determined the cause for, turned out to be caused by a naturalistic cause. This includes all the things we previously thought were caused by supernatural agents (tides, magnets, rain, lightning, etc). This is not sufficient to conclude that the universe was caused by a naturalistic event, but it's certainly sufficient to operate under the tentative assumption that probably it was caused by a naturalistic event.

It's not necessarily logically airtight to conclude that John Smith has 46 chromosomes, just because he is a homo sapiens and every homo sapiens we've encountered so far has had 46 chromosomes. It would only be logically airtight to conclude John Smith had 46 chromosomes if it was a true premise that ALL homo sapiens have 46 chromosomes. It's extremely rare, but some may be born with some birth defect and have a different number of chromosomes while still being a homo sapiens.

Nonetheless, it certainly is more reasonable to start with the general assumption that John Smith has 46 chromosomes just like billions of other homo sapiens and then modify the assumption if evidence to the contrary presents itself, than it is to start with the assumption that he has 48 chromosomes.

Similarly, it's not necessarily logically airtight to conclude that the cause of the universe was naturalistic, just because the cause of everything else we've ever encountered was naturalistic. It would only be airtight if it was a true premise that ALL causes are naturalistic - which is a position I do NOT hold (see my rejection of methodological naturalism)

Nonetheless, it certainly is more reasonable to start with the general assumption that the universe was caused by a natural event, just like trillions of other things were, and then modify the assumption if evidence to the contrary presents itself, than it is to go the other way round.

They appeal to the future and say, "Science will someday have an explanation for it." Sure, that's a possibility.

Oh. So you're modifying your position? I thought you asserted (MULTIPLE TIMES) that it's IMPOSSIBLE for science to empirically explore outside the cosmic event horizon. Now you're saying it's possible? Please let me know if you are hereby conceding that a scientific explanation of events outside the cosmic event horizon are possible, as in, quote "sure, that's a possibility".

But, as I also said at the onset, we cannot appeal to the future. We can only go by what we know now.

We cannot appeal to the future when trying to determine what is true. As in, we cannot say "In the future we will discover that the cause of the universe was naturalistic, therefore it's true that the cause was naturalistic". But we can certainly entertain the notion that it's possible that science will someday discover a naturalistic cause for the universe. As in, quote, "Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility"

And ironically, the same charge of argument from ignorance can be levied against naturalists. They actually do make a claim of ignorance since they do not know what is the cause.

Again, if naturalists made the argument "We are ignorant of whether the cause was naturalistic, therefore it's naturalistic", then it would be an argument from ignorance. But we do NOT make that argument. We make an argument from conformity with what we know to be true. Everything we observe is caused by something naturalistic, therefore it's POSSIBLE that the cause of the universe is non-naturalistic, but it's more reasonable to operate under the assumption that it was naturalistic, until evidence is presented which settles the matter one way or the other.

Which reminds me: Can we return soon to you presenting arguments for IH, rather than discussing semantics and logic 101?

Another reason that IH is not an argument from ignorance is that it is falsifiable. If a naturalistic explanation is found, then IH is falsified.

1) I don't know if Oliver Tseng's family is originally from China, Korea or elsewhere
2) Therefore Oliver's familiy is from Korea

Do you agree that this is an argument from ignorance?

Is the claim that your ancestors are from Korea a falsifiable claim? It is, isn't it? You could conceivably show me the ticket for the plane or boat ride that took your grandpa to the US from somewhere other than Korea, or something. That would falsify the claim that you're from Korea.

Therefore the conclusion that your'e from Korea could be falsified. Is it therefore not an argument from ignorance to say that I don't know where you're from, therefore you're from Korea?

What you're saying is utterly and profoundly nonsensical. The falsifiability of a conclusion has absolutely no bearing on the validity (or lack thereof) of the logical argument that was used to derive the conclusion.

An argument from ignorance is an argument from ignorance irrespective of the argument's conclusion's falsifiability.

Come on!

There is no retreating to some other thing to rest God on.

Sure there is. If a natural cause is ever found for the universe, you'd be able to just push it one step back and ask "what caused that cause? We don't know therefore it was God or a supernatural event", and you would thus be able to fuel a few more centuries of fallacious thinking and religiosity, until a naturalistic cause for the naturalistic cause of the universe is found, and then you'd claim that God created that, on the basis of your ignorance of what created it.

As to the charge of popularity.

Let me be clear that I'm not arguing that IH is correct because a lot of people believe in it. What I'm more getting at is that IH makes intuitive sense. People can grasp the concept, regardless of time and culture. NIH does not make intuitive sense. Why should it be that nobody has believed in this explanation prior to you? All throughout history, most people would agree with most (if not all) the assumptions we had agreed to earlier. It naturally leads to the conclusion of God for most. But, it does not lead to the conclusion of NIH.

That's an interesting piece of trivia, and as long as you leave it at that, I don't have a problem. Just don't retract your concession that forming a logical argument on the basis of the popularity of a claim is a logical fallacy.

Another point is if you can get others to accept NIH. If you cannot convince peers of a novel theory, then most likely the theory is wrong.

That sounds like an argument from authority (you seem to be running a logical fallacy marathon today), but I'll let it slide.

My goal is not to demonstrate that my theory is right. All I have to do is demonstrate that this alternative explanation for the universe does not have LESS logical and evidentiary support than the primary deistic explanation you are proposing.

According to your general principle, it's only reasonable to believe an explanation if it has more evidence and logic supporting it than alternatives. If I am able to demonstrate that your deistic explanation has no more logical and evidentiary support than its antithesis, then my burden is met, even if NIH in its turn has no more logical and evidentiary backing than IH.

And given that as of right now you have presented 9 arguments for IH and conceded that they were all fallacious, I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job

I'm sorry but by introducing the term "observable universe" to describe a concept we already understood and had already been discussing you've done nothing to advance the discussion.

One reason I introduced the term is that you referred to the event horizon of a black hole. That event horizon is not relevant to the discussion of the origin of the universe. The event horizon of the observable universe is what is relevant.

Ok

It's impossible to directly observe, from standstill, in the present day, with current technology, that which is beyond the cosmic event horizon. The problem for you is that direct observation is not the only type of observation that can provide empirical verification, we will not always necessarily be at standstill with regards to any event horizon, and in the future we might develop technology to address whatever impediments currently exists.

This would be appealing to the future.

It is not permitted to appeal to the future when trying to determine what is true. But ti is permitted to appeal to the future when guessing what may be possible. As in, quote, "Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility".

But, yes, I claim that it's impossible to verify things outside our universe. It's a given that with current technology, it's impossible. And really that's all I need to demonstrate.

I do go further and claim that it's impossible to verify even in principle. The speed of light is the maximum speed any object can travel. Unless the laws of physics changes, it's impossible to travel (or even communicate) past the cosmic event horizon.

"Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility".

These two statement which you made in the same post directly contradict themselves. Please pick a position and stick to it.

First we could see them, and then we could not. Kinda how somebody driving at 30 miles an hour, eventually will no longer be able to see a car driving on same highway at 60 miles/hour.

I've never heard of that. You'll have to show me where this has been recorded.

Fully documented here.

Could you summarize that one hour video?

Can we just let this aspect go? It's an unimportant detail.

You are claiming that it's irrefutably, undeniably, categorically 100% impossible, forever, for anybody, no matter what, to empirically verify any statement about conditions outside their cosmic event horizon.

I discussed this above.

Yup, and you contradicted yourself above as well. I await a clarification.

Sure, until such a time as we are able to devise a method to send a intra-universal sensor to this different universe. Or until such a time as we are able to discover ways to measure the ways in which these different laws in this other universe manifest themselves in an empirically measurable way in this universe.

This would be appealing to the future. And actually, I believe appealing to science fiction.

Again, appealing to the future is not permitted when trying to determine what is true, but it's permitted when trying to estimate what is possible.

As far as calling it an appeal to science fiction, can you give me an example of science that wouldn't have been considered science fiction at some stage in the past?

Ok, can you confirm that "without proof" is completely different from "without evidence"?

I would say "blind faith" is belief without any evidence.

Ok, but I didn't ask you about blind faith.

I asked you if belief with some evidence but without definite proof is "faith".

Let me rephrase. You wrote: "For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven."

So, when something is knowable but cannot be definitively proven, is it an act of faith to believe it?

For example, whether chicken lay eggs or not is knowable but cannot be definitively proven. I believe it. Is that an act of faith?

Also, saying something that is natural that is outside our universe would be redefining the word natural.

Really? I just looked up 146 definitions of the word "natural" on Google dictionary, Merriam-Webster, thefreedictionary, dictionary.com, and NONE of them contained any definition even remotely close to "exclusively relating to events inside a specific cosmic event horizon".

I provided the definitions of the word "nature" above. None refer to things outside our universe.

Right, but none explicitly exclude things outside of the universe.

If you wish to claim that those definitions that say "natural is that which is inside the universe" implicitly exclude that which is outside the universe, then I will make the claim that those MUCH MORE FREQUENT definitions that say "Natural is that which is inside the world" implicitly exclude that which is outside the world, making Saturn supernatural.

What if NIH posits an immobile, timeless, unknown cause for the universe? The incompatibility of timelessness and movement would not apply to it, because it would be unmoving.

Immobile and unmoving? So, that would throw out string theory as well as any possible mechanistic theory.

I guess that insofar as string theory posits that the antecedent cause of the universe was vibrating, it would conflict with NIH. I don't know enough about string theory.

All I can say for sure, is that however weird, counterintuitive and problematic any hypothesis involving immobility and timelessness might be, an hypothesis involving immobility, timelessness and intelligence is even more problematic. Therefore, if no evidence is presented one way or the other, it stands to reason, by Occam's razor, to tentatively operate under the less problematic assumption until evidence is presented.

[no evidence no belief]

Quick update to a statement I made in my last post:

But now we are on the brink of making empirical, testable falsifiable statements about additional dimensions, and other materials outside our cosmic event horizon. The zeitgeist is shifting, and the concept of "nature" is being updated.

Please read this and this article about hard evidence having been found for material outside out cosmic event horizon.

Testable claims/predictions were made on the basis of an hypothesis about extra-universal material, and then empirical data confirmed the validity of these claims/predictions.

Are we 100% sure about this? No.

Are we 100% sure that chicken lay eggs? No.

But by your general principle, logic and evidence support the notion that science can explore events, objects and phenomena outside our cosmic event horizon, more than they support alternative notions.

Now, I don't exactly understand why you're trying to argue the imponderability of stuff outside the event horizon, and how this would help IH, but there you have it.

You are trying to argue for intelligence's involvement in the universe coming into existence.

Every single argument you presented you had to retract.

Would you like to discuss fine-tuning, or any other argument for Deism, or are you reduced to discussing side issues such as "ponderability beyond the event horizon", "definition of supernatural" and more, because no argument directly pertaining to your central thesis remains?

[otseng]

Number of times "nature" is defined as events and objects restricted to exclusively inside the world: 7

Number of times "nature" is defined as events and objects restricted to exclusively inside the universe: 2

By a margin of 3 to 1, in the very definitions you presented, "nature" is restricted to meaning something occurring inside the "world".

By a margin of 3 to 1, according to these definitions, things outside our PLANET would not be considered nature.

In terms of laws of nature, of course it's not just confined to the planet earth. World in the context of the laws of nature means the universe, not just our planet.

1. the whole of the physical Universe, or
2. an ontological world (see world disclosure).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World

The word "universe" is a relic of a less distant past, but outdated nonetheless.

What do you mean by "universe"?

Do you dispute this definition?

The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius. Scientific observation of the Universe has led to inferences of its earlier stages. These observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe, which is calculated to have begun 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

But now we are on the brink of making empirical, testable falsifiable statements about additional dimensions, and other materials outside our cosmic event horizon. The zeitgeist is shifting, and the concept of "nature" is being updated.

Please show how statements about additional dimensions are empirical, testable, and falsifiable.

Now it's becoming a series of multidimensional membranes, a multiverse.

Are you saying there are many universes or only one universe? Because in post 43, you stated, "For NIH there is one universe. For IH, you posit there is only one universe. For NIH I posit there is only one universe. "

If you want to discuss what "nature" meant at any given point in human history, you're certainly welcome to.

I've only been giving current definitions. It's not me that's giving definitions from the past.

And it is this: Nature is simply a word for everything which exists separate from human activity.

Then God, angels, the devil, demons are also nature.

To draw the line at the event horizon is arbitrary and baseless, much like it would be to draw the line at our galaxy, at our planet's stratosphere, or at the edge of the forest near our village.

Actually, the line is our universe, not just the cosmic event horizon.

How many times must we expand our observational capabilities and discover that what was just beyond our observable environment at the time actually wasn't some mysterious breakdown of the fabric of reality, before we stop jumping to the conclusion that the laws of nature cease existing just outside our ability to observe them?

I think we both agree that laws of nature apply everywhere that is outside our observable universe that is also inside our universe. There is no dispute with that. What is really at issue are things outside our universe.

Do you agree that the above is an argument from ignorance?

1) We don't know how X came to be
2) Therefore either Y or Z caused X

Sure.

How do you define supernatural and natural?

I don't have a definition for supernatural.

Let me define supernatural then.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

1. Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by a deity or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.
2. Not of the usual; not natural; altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.
3. Neither visible nor measurable.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supernatural

: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Do you agree with these definitions?

I don't see how any object, event, phenomenon could be anything other than natural.

So, you presume that the supernatural does not exist?

When you ask me "how do you define supernatural and natural", what I feel you're asking me is "how do you define a square with 5 corners and a square with 4 corners".

It shouldn't be that hard. There are multiple dictionaries out there. I'm not asking you to believe in the supernatural. I'm just asking for definitions that we both agree to in order to debate the subject.

"Supernatural" and "a square with 5 corners" I define as meaningless logical absurdities. "Natural" and "a square with 4 corners" I define as everything, and every square, respectively.

If we define natural as everything within our universe (which complies with standard definitions) and we define supernatural as everything outside our universe (which also complies with standard definitions), then all the terms are clear.

In a grotesque effort to try to squeeze NIH inside the pigeonhole of "miracle" you've been doing nothing but cherrypicking those variations and portions of the definition of miracle that kinda fit it, while completely ignoring those variations and portions that directly contradict it, and drawing the fallacious conclusion that therefore NIH is a miracle.

Your argument is that NIH is natural, but that requires you to define nature to include things outside the universe (which is against standard definitions).

We cannot come to the conclusion that something doesn't obey a law of nature on the basis of our IGNORANCE of whether it does or not.

If you are ignorant of an unknown law, then it is ignorance to claim that it does obey an unknown law.

1) All miracles involve an event outside the cosmic event horizon
2) NIH happened outside the cosmic event horizon
3) Therefore NIH is a miracle

I don't know why you keep referring to the cosmic event horizon. The issue is the universe.

But, this is not my argument. Here is my argument in full.

1) If an event occurs that is supernatural in origin and does not obey any of the known laws of nature, then it is a miracle.
2) All things outside the universe is supernatural.
3) NIH posits the universe originated outside our universe.
4) NIH posits that it does not obey any known law of nature.
5) Therefore, NIH is a miracle.

Here are the exact words of your accepted definition of miracle: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"

That is one of the definitions that I linked to.

But what I stated was: "What is common in these definitions is that it is supernatural in origin and does not conform to the laws of nature. So, my definition would be - A miracle is an event that is supernatural in origin and does not obey any of the known laws of nature."

If a breakdown, suspension, collapse, pause in the laws of nature happens inside the universe then it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, a miracle. If it happened outside the universe it would be a miracle, but if it happens inside the universe (drumroll please) IT IS NOT a miracle.

What we're talking about is the cause, not the effect. If the cause is inside our universe (gravitational pull of a collapsing star), it cannot be considered a miracle. If the cause is outside the universe, then it could be a miracle.

The cause of the singularity inside the black hole is posited to be from within the universe, so it's not considered a miracle. The cause of the origin of our universe is from outside our universe, so it can be considered to be a miracle.

This is a charge commonly levied against the argument for God. I presented at the very beginning that the method used to determine if an explanation is reasonable is to compare all the possible explanations. Comparing all the possible explanations is not an argument from ignorance. If one is not willing to look at all the possible explanations and simply say God did it is an argument from ignorance.

It doesn't matter if first you refuse to look at all possible explanations and then you make an argument from ignorance, or if first you agree to look at all the possible explanations and then you make an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy that does not consider all the possible explanations and jumps to the conclusion of one of the explanations.

This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

If all the possible explanations are being explored, then it's not an argument from ignorance. Since the only explanations on the table are IH and NIH, it is not an argument from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance is when you derive a conclusion from ignorance.

Ignorance of what specifically?

Every event we've ever determined the cause for, turned out to be caused by a naturalistic cause.

The issue are things we do not have a naturalistic explanation for, specifically, the origin of the universe.

Nonetheless, it certainly is more reasonable to start with the general assumption that the universe was caused by a natural event, just like trillions of other things were, and then modify the assumption if evidence to the contrary presents itself, than it is to go the other way round.

One is certainly free to propose a naturalistic -- if that term even makes any sense in the context of the origin of the universe -- explanation. One can also have a bias towards a naturalistic explanation. But, it doesn't show in any way that the naturalistic explanation is true.

They appeal to the future and say, "Science will someday have an explanation for it." Sure, that's a possibility.

Oh. So you're modifying your position? I thought you asserted (MULTIPLE TIMES) that it's IMPOSSIBLE for science to empirically explore outside the cosmic event horizon. Now you're saying it's possible?

Sure, I could be disproved wrong about IH and science does eventually come up with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. But, I do believe that it won't happen. And yes, I still stand by my position that it's impossible to empirically verify things outside our universe.

But we can certainly entertain the notion that it's possible that science will someday discover a naturalistic cause for the universe. As in, quote, "Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility"

Yes, that's a possibility. And, like I said before, if it happens, then IH is falsified.

Everything we observe is caused by something naturalistic, therefore it's POSSIBLE that the cause of the universe is non-naturalistic, but it's more reasonable to operate under the assumption that it was naturalistic, until evidence is presented which settles the matter one way or the other.

Not everything we observe is caused by something naturalistic. I would agree with most, but not everything.

Which reminds me: Can we return soon to you presenting arguments for IH, rather than discussing semantics and logic 101?

Unfortunately, since we disagree on semantics, we need to spend time on it.

Another reason that IH is not an argument from ignorance is that it is falsifiable. If a naturalistic explanation is found, then IH is falsified.

1) I don't know if Oliver Tseng's family is originally from China, Korea or elsewhere
2) Therefore Oliver's familiy is from Korea

Do you agree that this is an argument from ignorance?

Yes.

An argument from ignorance is an argument from ignorance irrespective of the argument's conclusion's falsifiability.

I'm not saying that being falsifiable has bearing on all arguments of ignorance. I'm bringing it up for the God-did-it as being an argument from ignorance.

If someone claims that God causes earthquakes, then it's found out that plate movement causes earthquakes, then it does not falsify God. In the case of IH, if it's found out that there is a naturalistic explanation for the universe, then it falsifies God. So, this is a difference between God causing earthquakes as an actual argument from ignorance and God creating the universe as not being an argument from ignorance.

If a natural cause is ever found for the universe, you'd be able to just push it one step back and ask "what caused that cause? We don't know therefore it was God or a supernatural event", and you would thus be able to fuel a few more centuries of fallacious thinking and religiosity, until a naturalistic cause for the naturalistic cause of the universe is found, and then you'd claim that God created that, on the basis of your ignorance of what created it.

You can write this down and hold me accountable to it. If a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is found to be true (even 50 years from now), I'll give up on arguing for God. The God of the Bible has been falsified.

Just don't retract your concession that forming a logical argument on the basis of the popularity of a claim is a logical fallacy.

Again, I'm not stating that IH is correct because more people believe in it.

Another point is if you can get others to accept NIH. If you cannot convince peers of a novel theory, then most likely the theory is wrong.

That sounds like an argument from authority (you seem to be running a logical fallacy marathon today), but I'll let it slide

Well, this is the premise of peer reviewed publications. If you think that peer review publications base their work on a logical fallacy, then that's your prerogative.

The marathon is more like the number of false accusations of logical fallacies made.

But ti is permitted to appeal to the future when guessing what may be possible. As in, quote, "Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility".

Guessing has no place in logical debates.

But, yes, I claim that it's impossible to verify things outside our universe. It's a given that with current technology, it's impossible. And really that's all I need to demonstrate.

I do go further and claim that it's impossible to verify even in principle. The speed of light is the maximum speed any object can travel. Unless the laws of physics changes, it's impossible to travel (or even communicate) past the cosmic event horizon.

"Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility".

These two statement which you made in the same post directly contradict themselves. Please pick a position and stick to it.

It's not a contradiction if I make a claim, but also believe that it's possible for me to be wrong.

Can we just let this aspect go? It's an unimportant detail.

OK

Let me rephrase. You wrote: "For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven."

So, when something is knowable but cannot be definitively proven, is it an act of faith to believe it?

I would say so. How would you define faith?

If you wish to claim that those definitions that say "natural is that which is inside the universe" implicitly exclude that which is outside the universe, then I will make the claim that those MUCH MORE FREQUENT definitions that say "Natural is that which is inside the world" implicitly exclude that which is outside the world, making Saturn supernatural.

There are multiple definitions to the term 'nature'. We have to use the term in the context of what we are debating. Also, the world, as a I showed earlier, can mean the entire universe.

I guess that insofar as string theory posits that the antecedent cause of the universe was vibrating, it would conflict with NIH. I don't know enough about string theory.

OK, good. We can entirely dismiss string theory then. I also assume we can throw out any mechanistic explanation that requires time/movement.

All I can say for sure, is that however weird, counterintuitive and problematic any hypothesis involving immobility and timelessness might be, an hypothesis involving immobility, timelessness and intelligence is even more problematic. Therefore, if no evidence is presented one way or the other, it stands to reason, by Occam's razor, to tentatively operate under the less problematic assumption until evidence is presented.

I never claimed that God was immobile. All I claimed was that God was timeless.

Please read this and this article about hard evidence having been found for material outside out cosmic event horizon.

Interpreting the CBMR is a theory, not hard evidence.

Further, this statement, "Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own." would make it incompatible with NIH. So, if you accept these, then it disqualifies NIH.

But by your general principle, logic and evidence support the notion that science can explore events, objects and phenomena outside our cosmic event horizon, more than they support alternative notions.

Where did I say this? All I've claimed is that it's impossible to empirically verify laws outside of our universe. To verify, one needs to make repeatable, measurable observations. Sure, we can make observations in our universe (like the CBMR), but it does not confirm if laws are true in another universe, esp if the laws are different from ours.

You are trying to argue for intelligence's involvement in the universe coming into existence.

Like I've mentioned before, I'm not even arguing for intelligence now. All I'm claiming is intentionality.

Every single argument you presented you had to retract.

What are you referring to that I had to retract?

Would you like to discuss fine-tuning, or any other argument for Deism

Not quite yet. We still cannot get past basic definitions like: universe, world, nature, natural, supernatural, miracle, and faith. These words are definitely going to come up again in the future. We'll need to resolve this before going into fine-tuning.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey Otseng, I agree that we should iron down the definitions of the various terms before continuing.

What do you mean by "universe"?

I would posit that the word "universe", much like the word "world" could have two meanings. The literal meaning - "everything which began existing at the big bang" - and the philosophical meaning - "the totality of existence", as per the definition you provided directly below.

I wouldn't presume that you accept any of my definitions or labels until you say so, but for the sake of clarity for the duration of this post and no further unless you give me the thumbs up, for clarity I will refer to the "product of the big bang" as "universe", and to the "totality of existence" as UNIVERSE.

The other indicated synonimouses (reality, nature, world, etc) I would also similarly differentiate by use of lower case and upper case.

Do you dispute this definition?

The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

I accept this as the definition of UNIVERSE! Wholeheartedly. But NOT as the definition of universe.

I will now prove why UNIVERSE and universe are of necessity different, and why the above is a valid definition of the first but not the second.

UNIVERSE is defined above as the "totality of existence". In other words, a set which includes everything which exists.

universe is defined as everything which began existing at the big bang. In other words a subset of UNIVERSE. Everything which exists, but would not if the big bang hadn't happened.

Now we both agree that something external to the universe caused the universe. Let's label this entity God, just for the next paragraph.

God has two properties. 1) It exists. Thus it is part of the UNIVERSE (the set "everything which exists"). 2) It is outside the universe. It did not begin existing at the big bang

So, we're accepting 4 premises:
1) As per your definition above, UNIVERSE is a set containing everything which exists.
2) As per previous statements you made, universe is a subset of UNIVERSE, containing only those things which started existing at the big bang
3) God exists
4) God did not start existing at the big bang

On the basis of these premises I can formulate this syllogism
1) UNIVERSE is a set which contains God
2) universe is a set which does not contain God
3) Therefore UNIVERSE and universe are different sets
4) Also, the universe is a subset of the UNIVERSE

As a result of the inevitable truth of this syllogism, the following statements are all true
- Nothing can exist outside the UNIVERSE
- God, if he exists, is not natural but he is NATURAL
- Jesus (if the Bible accurately reflects reality) was both NATURAL and natural when he was on earth, but became NATURAL and supernatural when he ascended to heaven.
- NATURAL stuff exists outside of nature
- Nothing can be super-NATURAL.
- The laws of NATURE cannot be broken, varied, suspended.
- The laws of nature don't necessarily apply everywhere in NATURE.
- If the definition of natural is "that which began existing at or after the big bang", then the definition of supernatural is "everything which did not begin existing at or after the big bang". In other words, if NATURAL is the set "everything which exists", and natural is the set "everything which would not exist if the big bang hadn't happened", then supernatural is the set "everything which exists and would exist even if the big bang hadn't happened"
- If the definition of NATURAL is "everything which exists", then the definition of SUPERNATURAL is "that which does not exist".

The definition of UNIVERSE you provided above is accurate. It defines UNIVERSE as the "totality of existence", (thus of necessity it must include the entity that caused the big bang, because that entity exists), and then it goes on to give some examples of objects included in the "totality of existence" set. Galaxies, matter, intergalactic space, etc. Note that it does not exclude entities which were not caused by the big bang. If it did, then the term "totality of existence" would no longer apply and the definition would be self-contradictory.

Now it's becoming a series of multidimensional membranes, a multiverse.

Are you saying there are many universes or only one universe? Because in post 43, you stated, "For NIH there is one universe. For IH, you posit there is only one universe. For NIH I posit there is only one universe. "

I must amend my definition. I apologize if this means we have to go back and revisit previously closed arguments.

NIH does not explicitly posit the existence of any universe other than this one, but neither does it explicitly exclude the possibility of the existence of other universes, or the possibility that the entity that caused the universe also caused other stuff, or that stuff exists completely independently of both the big bang and the entity that caused it.

Does IH posit that of necessity it's impossible that God created anything other than this universe?

And it is this: Nature is simply a word for everything which exists separate from human activity.

Then God, angels, the devil, demons are also nature.

Well, if they exist (please provide evidence) then they are part of NATURE. Everything which exists is part of NATURE. But unless you wish to claim that God, angels, the devil and demons started existing at the big bang, they are not part of nature.

If God exists, then he is NATURAL.

If God is SUPERNATURAL/EXTRANATURAL/NON-NATURAL, then he does not exist.

If God was not caused by the big bang, he is not natural.

To draw the line at the event horizon is arbitrary and baseless, much like it would be to draw the line at our galaxy, at our planet's stratosphere, or at the edge of the forest near our village.

Actually, the line is our universe, not just the cosmic event horizon.

No. The line, as per the definition YOU presented, is "the totality of existence". If something which caused the big bang exists, then he must be part of this "totality of existence" called UNIVERSE/NATURE/REALITY.

How many times must we expand our observational capabilities and discover that what was just beyond our observable environment at the time actually wasn't some mysterious breakdown of the fabric of reality, before we stop jumping to the conclusion that the laws of nature cease existing just outside our ability to observe them?

I think we both agree that laws of nature apply everywhere that is outside our observable universe that is also inside our universe. There is no dispute with that. What is really at issue are things outside our universe.

Lemme, define observable universe real quick: The subset of the universe which is inside our cosmic event horizon.

The laws of nature almost always apply inside the observable universe. The exception is black holes
The laws of nature almost always apply inside the universe. The exception is black holes
We do not know if the laws of nature apply outside the universe.

The laws of NATURE always apply inside the observable universe
The laws of NATURE always apply inside the universe
The laws of NATURE always apply inside the UNIVERSE

Do you agree with all the statements above?

Do you agree that the above is an argument from ignorance?

1) We don't know how X came to be
2) Therefore either Y or Z caused X

Sure.

Ok. So your definition of miracle is based on an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to play gotcha. This is complicated stuff, so no pressure to nail it exactly the first time. I messed up definitions of stuff too. But do you agree that your current definition of miracle is untenable and we must reformulate, or at a minimum scrap the portion of it contingent on ignorance?

How do you define supernatural and natural?

I don't have a definition for supernatural.

Let me define supernatural then.

Actually, I now do have a definition of supernatural: Everything which did not begin to exist at the big bang - Everything which would exist even if the big bang did not happen.

I also have a definition of SUPERNATURAL: That which does not exist.

Lets see how my definitions stack up with the ones you provide below.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

This is a valid definition of supernatural, not of SUPERNATURAL

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

Sure. Stuff like the CMB cold spot, the preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013); the CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013); and the dark flow (2009) discovered by Laura Mersini-Houghton, and subsequently observed empirically, would be example of events that violate/interfere with/go beyond natural forces. (But not beyond NATURAL FORCES). Therefore they would be supernatural.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

Well if a deity exists and started existing at the big bang, then its actions would be neither supernatural nor SUPERNATURAL. If a deity exists and was not caused by the big bang, then its actions are supernatural but not SUPERNATURAL. If a deity does not exist, then its actions were SUPERNATURAL.

4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

"Miracle" is still ill-defined for our purposes so I'll leave it for now. See my attempt to define miracle below.

1. Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature

Yup.

often so considered because it is given by a deity or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.

I think we'll need to define miracle before we can figure this one out.

2. Not of the usual

Irrelevant. How usual/common something is, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it belongs inside or outside of the subset "universe" of the set "UNIVERSE"

not natural

No. It's only supernatural if it's outside the set "universe" not the subset "visible universe".

altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.

Absolutely not. Understanding of a force has no bearing whatsoever. If it falls within the subset "universe" it's natural irrespective of whether we understand it or not. If it falls within the subset UNIVERSE but outside the subset universe (such as the gravitational pull of other universes on our nonuniformly expanding universe), then its supernatural irrespective of whether we understand it or not. If it doesn't exist, then it's SUPERNATURAL.

3. Neither visible nor measurable.

Absolutely not. Visibility and measurability have no bearing whatsoever. If it falls within the subset "universe" it's natural irrespective of whether we can see it and measure it or not. If it falls within the subset UNIVERSE but outside the subset universe, then its supernatural irrespective of whether we can measure it (such as the gravitational pull of other universes on our nonuniformly expanding universe) or not. If it doesn't exist, then it's SUPERNATURAL.

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;

yup

especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Or alien travelers from a parallel universe. But there is no point of talking of Gods, goblins, aliens, fairies, demigods and spirits at this point. First lets provide evidence that they exist at all, and then we can establish whether they began existing at the big bang (and therefore are natural) or if they existed before/independently of the big bang (and therefore are supernatural).

departing from what is usual or normal

Absolutely not. Things can be usual and natural, usual and supernatural, unusual and natural, and unusual and supernatural. The two variables are completely unrelated.

especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

Nope. Things may appear to be supernatural but be natural. Things may appear to be natural but be supernatural. The success or failure of the observer to accurately identify whether something began existing at the big bang or before in no way affects the reality.

b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

I disagree, obviously. An agent can be invisible and be natural, such as a sniper killing someone without being seen by anybody, and it can be visible (or at least measurable) and supernatural, such as the empirically detected CMB cold spot.

As far as ghosts and spirits, we cannot really determine if they are post-big-bang and thus natural, or pre-big-bang and thus supernatural, until we've established they exist.

I don't see how any object, event, phenomenon could be anything other than natural.

So, you presume that the supernatural does not exist?

Amended with my new nomenclature, I presume the SUPERNATURAL does not exist. That is inevitable if NATURAL is a set of all that exists.

I presume that the supernatural does exist, if supernatural simply means that which follows the laws of NATURE and is not dependent on the big bang for existence.

When you ask me "how do you define supernatural and natural", what I feel you're asking me is "how do you define a square with 5 corners and a square with 4 corners".

It shouldn't be that hard. There are multiple dictionaries out there. I'm not asking you to believe in the supernatural. I'm just asking for definitions that we both agree to in order to debate the subject.

I understand that. Hopefully, the definitions above are agreeable to you and we can move forward. If not, I hope they will at least serve as a good starting point for you to provide any refinement you see fit.

"Supernatural" and "a square with 5 corners" I define as meaningless logical absurdities. "Natural" and "a square with 4 corners" I define as everything, and every square, respectively.

If we define natural as everything within our universe (which complies with standard definitions) and we define supernatural as everything outside our universe (which also complies with standard definitions), then all the terms are clear.

Yes.
Natural is everything inside our universe. NATURAL is everything inside or outside our universe. Supernatural is everything inside the UNIVERSE but outside our universe. SUPERNATURAL is that which does not exist.

Further clarified: Natural is everything which is downstream of the big bang in the causal chain.
Supernatural is everything which is upstream of the big bang in the causal chain OR which are not part at all of the causal chain that resulted in the big bang.

In a grotesque effort to try to squeeze NIH inside the pigeonhole of "miracle" you've been doing nothing but cherrypicking those variations and portions of the definition of miracle that kinda fit it, while completely ignoring those variations and portions that directly contradict it, and drawing the fallacious conclusion that therefore NIH is a miracle.

Your argument is that NIH is natural, but that requires you to define nature to include things outside the universe (which is against standard definitions).

Well, according to the definition YOU provided, and on the basis of which I produced this new terminology, NATURAL is that which is part of the "totality of existence". So, all that NIH needs to do to belong to the class "NATURAL", is exist. Obviously, since"natural" means "caused by the big bang" then NIH cannot be natural, since it caused the big bang.

There really is no equivocation. Whatever caused the universe is NATURAL and supernatural.

We cannot come to the conclusion that something doesn't obey a law of nature on the basis of our IGNORANCE of whether it does or not.

If you are ignorant of an unknown law, then it is ignorance to claim that it does obey an unknown law.

Of course. To claim that something follows a low on the basis of your ignorance of the law is as much of an argument from ignorance as it would be to argue that it does not follow a low based on your ignorance of the law.

1) I am ignorant of this law and of whether an entity obeys this law
2) Therefore the entity does/doesn't obey a law

The argument above is invalid irrespective of whether you select "does" or "doesn't".

The argument I make is not that, though. The argument I make is: Everything we can observe has been established to follow a law and nothing we can observe has been established to not follow a law. It's possible that things we cannot observe do NOT follow laws, but it's more reasonable to make the starting assumption that whatever we're assessing is similar to everything we've already observed, than fundamentally different.

A good analogy is the story of the "Boy who cried wolf". The villagers do not know if the unknown threat is an actual wolf or a false alarm. The last trillion trillion times they checked, it was not a wolf, it was a false alarm. Therefore it's reasonable for them to assume that the next one is also not a wolf and just a false alarm.

That's where the analogy's application ends. Because I would not advise that the villagers don't bother to verify it. They should totally study the problem until they know for sure if it's a wolf or not. But it's absolutely reasonable for them to think "It's probably just another false alarm by the prankster boy", as they go check it out.

1) All miracles involve an event outside the cosmic event horizon
2) NIH happened outside the cosmic event horizon
3) Therefore NIH is a miracle

I don't know why you keep referring to the cosmic event horizon. The issue is the universe.

My apologies. I got mixed up. Cosmic event horizon is synonymous with observable universe, not with universe, and definitely not with UNIVERSE.

But, this is not my argument. Here is my argument in full.

1) If an event occurs that is supernatural in origin [strike]and does not obey any of the known laws of nature[/strike], then it is a miracle.
2) All things outside the universe is supernatural.
3) NIH posits the universe originated outside our universe.
4)[strike] NIH posits that it does not obey any known law of nature.[/strike]
5) Therefore, NIH is a miracle.

Well, if you take out all the stuff about "known laws of nature" (because they are grounded in an argument from ignorance), then I agree with the structure of your argument. I just don't like your choice of the word "miracle". To signify my distaste, I will use the word "smiracle" for now, but may agree to miracle yet, if we manage to clearly define it in a way that distinguishes it from other possible interpretations.

But first, just to verify that we're on the same page, I will rewrite your argument above with different language. Tell me if you deem it still holds.

1) If an event occurs that wasn't caused by the big bang, then it's called a smiracle
2) All things which were not caused by the big bang either caused the big bang or are unrelated to the causal link that resulted in the big bang
3)NIH posits the universe was caused by the big bang
4) Therefore NIH was a smiracle

Does it still hold by your estimation?

Here are the exact words of your accepted definition of miracle: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"

That is one of the definitions that I linked to.

But what I stated was: "What is common in these definitions is that it is supernatural in origin and does not conform to the laws of nature. So, my definition would be - A miracle is an event that is supernatural in origin and does not obey any of the known laws of nature."

Well, I reject the second half of your definition and hope you accept this, but more on this later as I address your counter below.

But lets look at the first half: "A smiracle is an event that is supernatural in origin".

Isn't everything in the universe supernatural in origin? Everything in the universe can be traced back to a supernatural origin: IH or NIH.

If everything that follows causally from the big bang is natural, and if the big bang was originated by something supernatural, then isn't everything that is natural the result of an event that is supernatural in origin? Therefore, isn't everything inside the universe the result of a smiracle?

In other words, wouldn't Jesus rotting in his tomb be as much of a smiracle as Jesus rising from the dead?

A rotting corpse, and a resurrecting corpse could both be traced back to an event or entity antecedent to the big bang, thus supernatural, thus a miracle.

Please see later in this post a possible solution to this problem.

If a breakdown, suspension, collapse, pause in the laws of nature happens inside the universe then it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, a miracle. If it happened outside the universe it would be a miracle, but if it happens inside the universe (drumroll please) IT IS NOT a miracle.

What we're talking about is the cause, not the effect. If the cause is inside our universe (gravitational pull of a collapsing star), it cannot be considered a miracle. If the cause is outside the universe, then it could be a miracle.

Ok, so the cause of the asymmetry in the universe has been empirically observed to be caused by causes external to the universe, namely the gravitational pull of matter outside the universe. That would be a smiracle by our definition then, right?

The cause of the singularity inside the black hole is posited to be from within the universe, so it's not considered a miracle. The cause of the origin of our universe is from outside our universe, so it can be considered to be a miracle.

The cause of the asymmetry of the universe and other empirically observed anomalies has been established with a degree of confidence that meets the demands of your general principle to be outside our universe. So can it be considered a smiracle?

This is a charge commonly levied against the argument for God. I presented at the very beginning that the method used to determine if an explanation is reasonable is to compare all the possible explanations. Comparing all the possible explanations is not an argument from ignorance. If one is not willing to look at all the possible explanations and simply say God did it is an argument from ignorance.

It doesn't matter if first you refuse to look at all possible explanations and then you make an argument from ignorance, or if first you agree to look at all the possible explanations and then you make an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy that does not consider all the possible explanations and jumps to the conclusion of one of the explanations.

This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

If all the possible explanations are being explored, then it's not an argument from ignorance. Since the only explanations on the table are IH and NIH, it is not an argument from ignorance.

I'm sorry but what you outline above is just one of the several formats of the argument from ignorance. It can also be an argument from ignorance if there are only two options. Even if "argument from ignorance" is not the correct term for this type of logical fallacy, it clearly is logically fallacious.

For example. I just wrote a positive integer on a piece of paper. It can only be one of two things: Even or odd.

If you claim "I don't know whether Luca wrote down an even or odd number, therefore it was an even number", then it's an argument from ignorance, and is invalid.

If there are just two options and you claim to know which one it is on the basis of not knowing which one it is, you're not making any sense at all!

Similarly, something happened and we don't know if it obeyed laws of nature or if it did NOT obey laws of nature. Assume that, just like for even and odd numbers, there are only those two options.

To say "I don't know whether this event obeyed laws of nature or not, therefore it did not obey laws of nature" is an argument from ignorance.

If there are just two options and you claim to know that it's one of the two on the basis of not knowing if it's one of the two, you're not making any sense at all!

A supernatural event is one that originated outside the universe (but inside the UNIVERSE). Whether we know or not that any event belongs to this class doesn't matter one bit.

To say that "an item belongs inside one set because we don't know if it belongs inside that set" is probably the least amount of sense that can be made with 16 words (unless the set is "things we dont know in which set they belong, lol).

Can you hereby agree to scrap the portion of your definition of smiracle that involves knowledge/ignorance, and simply define smiracle as an event that was caused by something which in turn was NOT caused by the big bang?

If you want, we can refine it further by saying that a smiracle is an event that was directly caused by something which in turn was not caused by the big bang.

This would clarify things, because otherwise, as I mentioned above, everything can be traced back to the entity that caused the big bang, and therefore everything is ultimately a smiracle. Instead if we limit it to things directly caused by something which in turn was not caused by the big bang then it's clearer. The big bang would be a smiracle, but the formation of galaxies wouldn't, because the big bang was directly caused by IH/NIH, whereas the formation of galaxies was indirectly caused by IH/NIH - namely the galaxies were formed by the universe cooling off, which was caused by it's expansion, which was caused by the big bang which was caused by IH/NIH.

This would also help later when we discuss theism, because under this definition something like Jesus walking on water would be directly caused by an entity that wasn't caused by the big bang (an intervening God), whereas Jesus falling into the water would be indirectly caused by an entity that wasn't caused by the big bang - namely the laws of gravity which were formed at the moment of explosion of the big bang, which was caused by IH/NIH.

How does that sound?

An argument from ignorance is when you derive a conclusion from ignorance.

Ignorance of what specifically?

Ignorance of whether a event obeyed laws of nature.

Every event we've ever determined the cause for, turned out to be caused by a naturalistic cause.

The issue are things we do not have a naturalistic explanation for, specifically, the origin of the universe.

Well, NATURE is defined as the "totality of existence". Therefore of necessity everything has a NATURALISTIC explanation because nothing can be caused by something which does not exist.

At the same time, under the new nomenclature, there is no question about the explanation for the origin of the universe, We agree that it was caused by an entity NOT caused by the big bang, and thus it's non-naturalistic. The only thing left to determine is whether this unspecified cause which in turn was NOT caused by the big bang is intelligent or not.

Nonetheless, it certainly is more reasonable to start with the general assumption that the universe was caused by a natural event, just like trillions of other things were, and then modify the assumption if evidence to the contrary presents itself, than it is to go the other way round.

One is certainly free to propose a naturalistic -- if that term even makes any sense in the context of the origin of the universe -- explanation. One can also have a bias towards a naturalistic explanation. But, it doesn't show in any way that the naturalistic explanation is true.

Ok. I hope that you agree that of necessity the cause of the universe was NATURALISTIC, but was also not naturalistic.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here. Sometimes clarifying your position is harder than defending it

I guess my position is that there are underlaying laws of NATURE which nothing which exists can defy. It could be that the only laws which are applicable to everything which exists are the logical absolutes, or maybe there is more. I'm not sure, and we'll have to see what we figure out as we discuss this further.

I also guess that I have no objection to the notion that the universe's local laws of nature (stuff like the degree of strength of the nuclear force, and gravity, and electromagnetism) break down/cease to apply/are interrupted outside the universe. After all all these laws break down inside black holes, so it would be ludicrous to claim that they somehow remain intact inside the mother of all singularities - the big bang.

So, honestly Oliver, I'm not sure about this. I'm treading on new territory here. Why don't you do your best to outline your position, and I'll do my best to figure out where I stand in relation to it.

They appeal to the future and say, "Science will someday have an explanation for it." Sure, that's a possibility.

Oh. So you're modifying your position? I thought you asserted (MULTIPLE TIMES) that it's IMPOSSIBLE for science to empirically explore outside the cosmic event horizon. Now you're saying it's possible?

Sure, I could be disproved wrong about IH and science does eventually come up with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. But, I do believe that it won't happen.

Ah! Very nice. I understand.

And yes, I still stand by my position that it's impossible to empirically verify things outside our universe.

Well, I still disagree Is sorting this out a necessary step to an argument directly pertaining to IH vs NIH which you were gonna make, or can we agree to disagree, at least for the time being?

Everything we observe is caused by something naturalistic, therefore it's POSSIBLE that the cause of the universe is non-naturalistic, but it's more reasonable to operate under the assumption that it was naturalistic, until evidence is presented which settles the matter one way or the other.

Not everything we observe is caused by something naturalistic. I would agree with most, but not everything.

I'm assuming that you're referring to your theistic beliefs. Is that correct?

Assuming so, my argument still holds. If we observe that almost everything has a naturalistic cause, isn't it more reasonable to operate under the tentative assumption that the next thing we investigate will also have a naturalistic cause?

Imagine you're holding a lotto ticket in your hand and don't know if it's a winning ticket or a losing ticket. What is more reasonable, to buy a Ferrari based on the assumption you will win the lotto, or to not buy a Ferrari based on the assumption you will not win the Lotto. Don't get me wrong, if you turn out to win the lotto, by all means, totally buy yourself a Ferrari. But isn't the reasonable time to start believing something extremely unlikely when evidence has been presented for it to be true? Until then, isn't assuming the overwhelmingly more likely possibility more reasonable?

Which reminds me: Can we return soon to you presenting arguments for IH, rather than discussing semantics and logic 101?

Unfortunately, since we disagree on semantics, we need to spend time on it.

ok

An argument from ignorance is an argument from ignorance irrespective of the argument's conclusion's falsifiability.

I'm not saying that being falsifiable has bearing on all arguments of ignorance. I'm bringing it up for the God-did-it as being an argument from ignorance.

I don't get it. Are you saying that it's not an argument from ignorance because there indeed are only two options (goddidit, and god didnt do it). You have two options, and you pick one on the basis of not knowing if it's the right one. How is that not an argument from ignorance?

If someone claims that God causes earthquakes, then it's found out that plate movement causes earthquakes, then it does not falsify God. In the case of IH, if it's found out that there is a naturalistic explanation for the universe, then it falsifies God. So, this is a difference between God causing earthquakes as an actual argument from ignorance and God creating the universe as not being an argument from ignorance.

If the claim is "God causes earthquakes", and we find out it does not, it falsifies the notion that God causes earthquakes, not that God exists.

If the claim is "God caused the big bang" and we find out he did not, it falsifies the notion that God caused the big bang, not that God exists.

God could still exist and not cause earthquakes. God could still exist and not have caused the big bang.

The earthquake claim is falsifiable, and it remains an argument from ignorance to say "God causes earthquakes because I don't know if he causes earthquakes".

The big bang claim is falsifiable, and it remains an argument from ignorance to say "God caused the big bang because I don't know if he caused the big bang".

If a natural cause is ever found for the universe, you'd be able to just push it one step back and ask "what caused that cause? We don't know therefore it was God or a supernatural event", and you would thus be able to fuel a few more centuries of fallacious thinking and religiosity, until a naturalistic cause for the naturalistic cause of the universe is found, and then you'd claim that God created that, on the basis of your ignorance of what created it.

You can write this down and hold me accountable to it. If a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is found to be true (even 50 years from now), I'll give up on arguing for God. The God of the Bible has been falsified.

I appreciate you saying that, but, honestly Oliver, why?

Why couldn't you say that God caused the event that caused the big bang?

Another point is if you can get others to accept NIH. If you cannot convince peers of a novel theory, then most likely the theory is wrong.

That sounds like an argument from authority (you seem to be running a logical fallacy marathon today), but I'll let it slide

Well, this is the premise of peer reviewed publications. If you think that peer review publications base their work on a logical fallacy, then that's your prerogative.

The marathon is more like the number of false accusations of logical fallacies made.

But ti is permitted to appeal to the future when guessing what may be possible. As in, quote, "Science will someday have an explanation for it. Sure, that's a possibility".

Guessing has no place in logical debates.

Logical debates is for determining what's true. Guessing what may be possible is allowed, unless a logical argument for something being impossible has been presented.

Let me rephrase. You wrote: "For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven."

So, when something is knowable but cannot be definitively proven, is it an act of faith to believe it?

I would say so. How would you define faith?

Would you agree to use the term faith like this: Faith is when one holds a belief that has failed to satisfy Otseng's general principle.

If you want we can use the term "blind faith" for that.

And the term "faith" might refer to a belief that has slightly more logical and evidentiary support when compared to alternatives, but not a substantial amount. For example, if I believed that a girl loved me because she agreed to go on a date with me.

If you wish to claim that those definitions that say "natural is that which is inside the universe" implicitly exclude that which is outside the universe, then I will make the claim that those MUCH MORE FREQUENT definitions that say "Natural is that which is inside the world" implicitly exclude that which is outside the world, making Saturn supernatural.

There are multiple definitions to the term 'nature'. We have to use the term in the context of what we are debating. Also, the world, as a I showed earlier, can mean the entire universe.

The term NATURE means "the totality of existence", or "everything which would exist even if the big bang had not taken place". The term nature means everything which would not exist if the big bang had not taken place.

I guess that insofar as string theory posits that the antecedent cause of the universe was vibrating, it would conflict with NIH. I don't know enough about string theory.

OK, good. We can entirely dismiss string theory then.

Well, I don't know about you, but dismissing a theory that for decades has preoccupied the greatest minds of our generation is slightly above my paygrade. I am willing to say that for the purpose of our layman's debate, we can bypass string theory for the time being. Seriously, I know so little about it, that dismissing it seems incautious. I agree that it seems incompatible with NIH in its current form, namely, positing an immobile cause. If the cause was mobile in an unspecified way that somehow did not conflict with timelessness, then string theory would be back on the table.

I also assume we can throw out any mechanistic explanation that requires time/movement.

To be specific, we can throw out time-dependent explanations if we determine that the cause is timeless, we can throw out mobility-dependent explanations if we determine that the cause is immobile, and we can throw out timelessness and immobility if we determine that time and movement are ALWAYS necessary components of each other, and if we determine that the cause is EITHER timeless OR immobile OR both.

All I can say for sure, is that however weird, counterintuitive and problematic any hypothesis involving immobility and timelessness might be, an hypothesis involving immobility, timelessness and intelligence is even more problematic. Therefore, if no evidence is presented one way or the other, it stands to reason, by Occam's razor, to tentatively operate under the less problematic assumption until evidence is presented.

I never claimed that God was immobile. All I claimed was that God was timeless.

I know.

I posited that movement was impossible without time. But you disagree, on the basis of the possibility that things might be different outside the universe.

Well, whatever would make movement possible in a timeless setting for IH, would make it possible for NIH as well (look at that! String theory is back on the table).

The fact remains that however unlikely something timeless, that can move despite being timeless, and caused the universe is, it's less unlikely and problematic than something timeless, that can move despite being timeless, caused the universe, and is intelligent.

Please read this and this article about hard evidence having been found for material outside out cosmic event horizon.

Interpreting the CBMR is a theory, not hard evidence.

Further, this statement, "Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own." would make it incompatible with NIH. So, if you accept these, then it disqualifies NIH.

Please see my amended definition of NIH as it relates to the number of universes.

I just thought of something else: It could be that NIH caused our universe, and something else caused other universes, meaning that the notion that NIH only caused one universe would still be true, while the existence of other universes would be possible.

But by your general principle, logic and evidence support the notion that science can explore events, objects and phenomena outside our cosmic event horizon, more than they support alternative notions.

Where did I say this? All I've claimed is that it's impossible to empirically verify laws outside of our universe. To verify, one needs to make repeatable, measurable observations. Sure, we can make observations in our universe (like the CBMR), but it does not confirm if laws are true in another universe, esp if the laws are different from ours.

Let me know if we can agree t disagree on this. If not, and if this is a necessary first step in whatever argument you're trying to make, I'll just agree with you for sake of argument. This way, if I manage to find a flaw further into your argument, it will not matter if we agreed on the first step or not

You are trying to argue for intelligence's involvement in the universe coming into existence.

Like I've mentioned before, I'm not even arguing for intelligence now. All I'm claiming is intentionality.

ok. I was referring to your broader argument. IH stands for Intelligence Hypothesis, right?

Every single argument you presented you had to retract.

What are you referring to that I had to retract?

All the arguments from conformity with logic, conformity with laws, conformity with what we know is true, falsifiability, etc. I summarized them several times, and your concession of the symmetry between how they advance NIH just as much as they advance IH is documented.

Would you like to discuss fine-tuning, or any other argument for Deism

Not quite yet. We still cannot get past basic definitions like: universe, world, nature, natural, supernatural, miracle, and faith. These words are definitely going to come up again in the future. We'll need to resolve this before going into fine-tuning.

Ok, below is my understanding of the definition of these terms as they stand right now, followed by my requests for modifications:

UNIVERSE, WORLD, NATURE: The totality of existence. A set including everything which exists
Universe, world, cosmos, natural: A subset of UNIVERSE. Everything which exists AND which would not exist had the big bang not happened.
Supernatural, extra-universal, otherworldly: A subset of UNIVERSE. Everything which exists AND which would exist even if the big bang had not happened.
SUPERNATURAL: Something which does not exist
Smiracle: An event directly caused by an entity not natural.
Non-miracle: An event caused by something natural
Faith: To firmly believe that a claim is true, despite the fact that the evidentiary and logical support for it is only very very slightly greater than for alternatives.
Blind faith: To believe that a claim is true, despite the fact that there is no more evidentiary and logical support for it than there is is for alternatives, or if alternatives have greater support.

Hopefully we're on the same page up to here.

I would like to now solve the issue of miracle/smiracle, and the issue of "supernatural", another term I find inappropriate for our purposes.

The problem with the term "miracle" is that of the several accepted publicly available definitions you presented, some fit to the definition I formulated above, others are completely different, and others still are partially compatible and partially incompatible. Now, if this debate involved exclusively you and me (like if it were a debate by private email), I'd be ok with using the term miracle because (if you agree to the definitions above) we're both exactly on the same page and there is no chance of error or misunderstanding.

But this debate is available to see to all users of the site. You and I, after 77 exchanges and tens of thousands of words, are finally (hopefully) on the same page. Another user who might peruse this thread, might skip past the first 8 pages and jump to subsequent material, and in so doing skip the section where we clearly define "miracle" (and "supernatural") in a way that fits some standard definitions, but conflicts with others. He/she would naturally assume that when we use the words in question we attach the standard definitions to them (including the ones about ignorance and rarity which I hope you agree do not apply), not the refined and more accurate definitions we put together, and thus come to the wrong conclusions about what we're trying to say.

I might say "Sure I agree that the universe coming into existence was a miracle". By that I would simply mean that the big bang was caused by an entity which in turn was not caused by the big bang, but it would be absolutely reasonable for an external reader to come to the wrong conclusion that by that I was agreeing that a deity was involved, because a significant portion of the definitions of miracle do include a deity.

Honestly, my resistance is not based on ideology, just on a desire for clarity with our readers. I think if 1000 random people were given a word association test, a significant number of them would associate the word "Miracle" with words like God, Jesus, Allah, Divine, Deity, Omnipotence, Prophet, Messiah, Guru, etc. I'm sure you can see the problem. NIH, and my worldview in general, excludes all of those things because they fail to meet the burden of your general principle. So to use a term that includes them in people's minds to describe my position would be highly confusing.

So I would like to try to find a different word for miracle, one that is less prone to misunderstanding. Extra-universal cause? Pre-big bang-entity? I'm open to suggestions.

Similarly, "supernatural" is an equally possibly misleading term, so as I suggested in the past, I would like to limit ourselves to "extra-universal".

Wow, long post. Sorry bout that. Let me know what you think. I look forward to resuming the debate once all the terminology has been squared away.

[no evidence no belief]

Mistake correction:

I was commenting on various definitions of supernatural/miracle and got flipped around. When you defined supernatural as "not natural" I wrote:

No. It's only supernatural if it's outside the set "universe" not the subset "visible universe".

When you defined it as: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

I wrote

yup

That's a clerical error. Those two responses should be switched around. I agree with the definition "not natural", but disagree with the definition that involves the observable universe rather than the entirety of the universe. Sorry for confusion.

[otseng]

for clarity I will refer to the "product of the big bang" as "universe", and to the "totality of existence" as UNIVERSE.

OK.

Also, as a general comment, I agree with the definitions of universe, nature, and supernatural since they line up with standard definitions. Though I accept your definitions of UNIVERSE, NATURE, and SUPERNATURAL, I just want to point out that they are not standard usages of the words.

So, we're accepting 4 premises:
1) As per your definition above, UNIVERSE is a set containing everything which exists.
2) As per previous statements you made, universe is a subset of UNIVERSE, containing only those things which started existing at the big bang
3) God exists
4) God did not start existing at the big bang

OK.

On the basis of these premises I can formulate this syllogism
1) UNIVERSE is a set which contains God
2) universe is a set which does not contain God
3) Therefore UNIVERSE and universe are different sets
4) Also, the universe is a subset of the UNIVERSE

OK.

The definition of UNIVERSE you provided above is accurate. It defines UNIVERSE as the "totality of existence", (thus of necessity it must include the entity that caused the big bang, because that entity exists), and then it goes on to give some examples of objects included in the "totality of existence" set.

However, I kinda doubt that the Wikipedia definition had in mind to include God in the definition of the universe. The second paragraph I quoted states:

The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius. Scientific observation of the Universe has led to inferences of its earlier stages. These observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe, which is calculated to have begun 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago.

It states here the age of the Universe to be around 14 billion years old. This clearly refers to your universe, not UNIVERSE.

I must amend my definition. I apologize if this means we have to go back and revisit previously closed arguments.

NIH does not explicitly posit the existence of any universe other than this one, but neither does it explicitly exclude the possibility of the existence of other universes, or the possibility that the entity that caused the universe also caused other stuff, or that stuff exists completely independently of both the big bang and the entity that caused it.

OK.

Does IH posit that of necessity it's impossible that God created anything other than this universe?

I'm staying with my original claim that only one universe exists and God only created our universe.

If God is SUPERNATURAL/EXTRANATURAL/NON-NATURAL, then he does not exist.

I think we can exclude discussing the SUPERNATURAL, EXTRANATURAL, and NON-NATURAL. By definition, there is nothing that is SUPERNATURAL or EXTRANATURAL or NON-NATURAL.

To draw the line at the event horizon is arbitrary and baseless, much like it would be to draw the line at our galaxy, at our planet's stratosphere, or at the edge of the forest near our village.

Actually, the line is our universe, not just the cosmic event horizon.

No. The line, as per the definition YOU presented, is "the totality of existence". If something which caused the big bang exists, then he must be part of this "totality of existence" called UNIVERSE/NATURE/REALITY.

The Wikipedia definition does not match your UNIVERSE, but it does match your universe.

The laws of NATURE always apply inside the observable universe
The laws of NATURE always apply inside the universe
The laws of NATURE always apply inside the UNIVERSE

Do you agree with all the statements above?

I would agree that a subset of the laws of NATURE always apply inside the universe. I don't know what it means to say that the laws of NATURE always apply inside the universe.

Do you agree that the above is an argument from ignorance?

1) We don't know how X came to be
2) Therefore either Y or Z caused X

Sure.

Ok. So your definition of miracle is based on an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to play gotcha. This is complicated stuff, so no pressure to nail it exactly the first time. I messed up definitions of stuff too. But do you agree that your current definition of miracle is untenable and we must reformulate, or at a minimum scrap the portion of it contingent on ignorance?

No, I do not agree that IH falls into your example. My argument is not simply we don't know how the universe originated, therefore God caused it.

Actually, I now do have a definition of supernatural: Everything which did not begin to exist at the big bang - Everything which would exist even if the big bang did not happen.

I also have a definition of SUPERNATURAL: That which does not exist.

I can accept these. And again, we can throw out discussing the SUPERNATURAL. If something does not exist by definition, then we don't need to debate it.

Amended with my new nomenclature, I presume the SUPERNATURAL does not exist.

Of course, by definition the SUPERNATURAL does not exist.

Hopefully, the definitions above are agreeable to you and we can move forward. If not, I hope they will at least serve as a good starting point for you to provide any refinement you see fit.

My only hesitation at this point is that new terms are being introduced that are unconventional (NATURE, NATURAL, UNIVERSE). But, I'll accept them and see how the debate proceeds with these new terms.

Natural is everything inside our universe. NATURAL is everything inside or outside our universe. Supernatural is everything inside the UNIVERSE but outside our universe. SUPERNATURAL is that which does not exist.

Further clarified: Natural is everything which is downstream of the big bang in the causal chain.
Supernatural is everything which is upstream of the big bang in the causal chain OR which are not part at all of the causal chain that resulted in the big bang.

Agreed.

The argument I make is: Everything we can observe has been established to follow a law and nothing we can observe has been established to not follow a law. It's possible that things we cannot observe do NOT follow laws, but it's more reasonable to make the starting assumption that whatever we're assessing is similar to everything we've already observed, than fundamentally different.

What law is being observed for people to make decisions?

They should totally study the problem until they know for sure if it's a wolf or not.

Sure. And this is what we're attempting to do.

1) If an event occurs that wasn't caused by the big bang, then it's called a smiracle
2) All things which were not caused by the big bang either caused the big bang or are unrelated to the causal link that resulted in the big bang
3)NIH posits the universe was caused by the big bang
4) Therefore NIH was a smiracle

Actually, no, I don't agree the conclusion follows the premises. You left out the correlation between NIH and an event that wasn't caused by the big bang.

Isn't everything in the universe supernatural in origin?

Ultimately, yes.

If everything that follows causally from the big bang is natural, and if the big bang was originated by something supernatural, then isn't everything that is natural the result of an event that is supernatural in origin? Therefore, isn't everything inside the universe the result of a smiracle?

If we go back far enough in the causal chain, yes, things would have a supernatural origin. But, for the purposes of this debate, we only need to consider short causal chains, not long causal chains.

In other words, wouldn't Jesus rotting in his tomb be as much of a smiracle as Jesus rising from the dead?

Jesus rotting in the tomb would be a result of bacteria decay. There is no need to invoke a supernatural cause for that. Jesus rising from the dead has no natural explanation and would have a supernatural cause.

Ok, so the cause of the asymmetry in the universe has been empirically observed to be caused by causes external to the universe, namely the gravitational pull of matter outside the universe. That would be a smiracle by our definition then, right?

By our definitions, yes, it'd be a miracle.

Suppose we see your chair start to float up. There is nothing attached to the chair to make it go up. There are no magnets, no strings, nothing that is in the room, the earth, or even in this universe that caused the chair to go up. We posit that some force (could even be some "gravitational" force) from outside our universe caused the chair to go up. That would fall under being a miracle.

Suppose we see stars move. There is nothing in our universe that caused the stars to move. We posit that something outside our universe is exerting a force on it to move. It would still fall under being a miracle.

The fact that the cause is outside our universe and violates natural laws makes it a miracle.

Even if "argument from ignorance" is not the correct term for this type of logical fallacy, it clearly is logically fallacious.

You cannot say that my argument is an "argument from ignorance" if you say that it is not the correct term to use. What exactly is the correct term for the fallacy that you claim I'm making?

If you claim "I don't know whether Luca wrote down an even or odd number, therefore it was an even number", then it's an argument from ignorance, and is invalid.

I'm not even making this type of argument. Where have I said, "it's either IH or NIH, therefore IH"?

simply define smiracle as an event that was caused by something which in turn was NOT caused by the big bang?

Sure, we can define miracle as that.

Instead if we limit it to things directly caused by something which in turn was not caused by the big bang then it's clearer. The big bang would be a smiracle, but the formation of galaxies wouldn't, because the big bang was directly caused by IH/NIH, whereas the formation of galaxies was indirectly caused by IH/NIH - namely the galaxies were formed by the universe cooling off, which was caused by it's expansion, which was caused by the big bang which was caused by IH/NIH.

Right, we only need to consider short causal chains (or perhaps just a single link).

This would also help later when we discuss theism, because under this definition something like Jesus walking on water would be directly caused by an entity that wasn't caused by the big bang (an intervening God), whereas Jesus falling into the water would be indirectly caused by an entity that wasn't caused by the big bang - namely the laws of gravity which were formed at the moment of explosion of the big bang, which was caused by IH/NIH.

Sure.

An argument from ignorance is when you derive a conclusion from ignorance.

Ignorance of what specifically?

Ignorance of whether a event obeyed laws of nature.

I think we both agree that the origin of the universe violates the laws of nature. Or do you not agree with this?

Every event we've ever determined the cause for, turned out to be caused by a naturalistic cause.

The issue are things we do not have a naturalistic explanation for, specifically, the origin of the universe.

Well, NATURE is defined as the "totality of existence". Therefore of necessity everything has a NATURALISTIC explanation because nothing can be caused by something which does not exist.

OK, but we are talking about a naturalistic cause, not a NATURALISTIC cause.

The only thing left to determine is whether this unspecified cause which in turn was NOT caused by the big bang is intelligent or not.

That'll be investigated next when we discuss fine-tuning.

I guess my position is that there are underlaying laws of NATURE which nothing which exists can defy.

I think we already identified at least one - the laws of logic. The laws of logic apply universally to NATURE.

Is sorting this out a necessary step to an argument directly pertaining to IH vs NIH which you were gonna make, or can we agree to disagree, at least for the time being?

I think we can pass on this for now.

If we observe that almost everything has a naturalistic cause, isn't it more reasonable to operate under the tentative assumption that the next thing we investigate will also have a naturalistic cause?

Well, by the definitions you just gave, the origin of the universe does not have a naturalistic cause, but has a supernaturalistic cause.

Are you saying that it's not an argument from ignorance because there indeed are only two options (goddidit, and god didnt do it). You have two options, and you pick one on the basis of not knowing if it's the right one. How is that not an argument from ignorance?

Yes, there are only two options on the table. And by this fact alone, it disqualifies it from an argument from ignorance.

If the claim is "God caused the big bang" and we find out he did not, it falsifies the notion that God caused the big bang, not that God exists.

If God did not cause the universe, the whole foundation of deism falls down. This is pretty much the central tenet of deism. The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth. If this is falsified, then the Bible is just a bunch of fables. (Note: This is only my position, not all Christians would say that it would falsify Christianity if a naturalistic explanation was found for the origin of the universe.)

Why couldn't you say that God caused the event that caused the big bang?

That'd be the easy way out and just having a retreating God.

Would you agree to use the term faith like this: Faith is when one holds a belief that has failed to satisfy Otseng's general principle.

Not sure I like that definition. First of all, it doesn't state what is the general principle. Second, it's not very objective to determine. How can one determine if it does or does not satisfy the general principle?

Well, I don't know about you, but dismissing a theory that for decades has preoccupied the greatest minds of our generation is slightly above my paygrade. I am willing to say that for the purpose of our layman's debate, we can bypass string theory for the time being. Seriously, I know so little about it, that dismissing it seems incautious. I agree that it seems incompatible with NIH in its current form, namely, positing an immobile cause. If the cause was mobile in an unspecified way that somehow did not conflict with timelessness, then string theory would be back on the table.

OK.

Well, whatever would make movement possible in a timeless setting for IH, would make it possible for NIH as well.

Sure, I'll grant that there is symmetry between IH and NIH is this regard.

I just thought of something else: It could be that NIH caused our universe, and something else caused other universes, meaning that the notion that NIH only caused one universe would still be true, while the existence of other universes would be possible.

Well, that could be possible. But, to limit the scope of this already difficult topic, we can dismiss trying to explain the cause of other universes.

Where did I say this? All I've claimed is that it's impossible to empirically verify laws outside of our universe. To verify, one needs to make repeatable, measurable observations. Sure, we can make observations in our universe (like the CBMR), but it does not confirm if laws are true in another universe, esp if the laws are different from ours.

Let me know if we can agree t disagree on this.

Yes, we can just agree that we disagree on this for now.

IH stands for Intelligence Hypothesis, right?

True, but I believe you were the one who coined the term. But, we can get more into intelligence in fine-tuning.

UNIVERSE, WORLD, NATURE: The totality of existence. A set including everything which exists
Universe, world, cosmos, natural: A subset of UNIVERSE. Everything which exists AND which would not exist had the big bang not happened.
Supernatural, extra-universal, otherworldly: A subset of UNIVERSE. Everything which exists AND which would exist even if the big bang had not happened.
SUPERNATURAL: Something which does not exist

Agreed.

Smiracle: An event directly caused by an entity not natural.

OK, but I'll continue to use the word "miracle".

Non-miracle: An event caused by something natural

OK.

Faith: To firmly believe that a claim is true, despite the fact that the evidentiary and logical support for it is only very very slightly greater than for alternatives.

Not sure what you mean by "only very very slightly greater than for alternatives".

Blind faith: To believe that a claim is true, despite the fact that there is no [strike]more[/strike] evidentiary and logical support for it [strike]than there is is for alternatives, or if alternatives have greater support[/strike].

I struck out the parts I think is unnecessary.

But this debate is available to see to all users of the site. You and I, after 77 exchanges and tens of thousands of words, are finally (hopefully) on the same page. Another user who might peruse this thread, might skip past the first 8 pages and jump to subsequent material, and in so doing skip the section where we clearly define "miracle" (and "supernatural") in a way that fits some standard definitions, but conflicts with others.

OK, I see your concern. How about we can try to include the definition when the term miracle is used? Can't guarantee it'll always happen, but you can remind me or you can clarify the usage in your following post.

Similarly, "supernatural" is an equally possibly misleading term, so as I suggested in the past, I would like to limit ourselves to "extra-universal".

If possible, we can use the two words together "supernatural/extra-universal" in sentences.